diff --git "a/text_defense/202.IMDB10K/imdb10k.valid.dat" "b/text_defense/202.IMDB10K/imdb10k.valid.dat"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/text_defense/202.IMDB10K/imdb10k.valid.dat"
@@ -0,0 +1,1000 @@
+I have to confess that I am severely disappointed.This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this.$LABEL$ 0
+First off I want to say that I lean liberal on the political scale and I found the movie offensive. I managed to watch the whole doggone disgrace of a film . This movie brings a low to original ideas. Yes it was original thus my 2 stars instead of 1. Are our film writers that uncreative that they can only come up with this?? Acting was horrible , and the characters were unlikeable for the most part. The lead lady in the story had no good qualities at all. They made her bf into some sort of a bad guy and I did not see that at all. Maybe I missed something , I do not know.He was the most down to earth, relevant character in the movie. I did not shell out any money for this garbage. I almost wish PETA would come to the rescue of this awful, offensive movie and form a protest. DISGUSTING thats all I have to say anymore !$LABEL$ 0
+I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!$LABEL$ 0
+When you look at the cover and read stuff about it an entirely different type of movie comes to mind than what you get here. Then again maybe I read the summary for the other movie called "Mausolem" instead as there were two movies of this title released about the same time with both featuring plots that had key elements in common. However, reading stuff about that movie here I know I saw this one and not that one and that movie is even less what one would imagine a movie with that title would be about. I will be honest, I expect more of a zombie type picture and you get that in this movie to some degree. However, there is more stuff involving the occult and strange powers as the opening scene of the people being taken away by the coroner at the beginning of the film will attest to. The movie also has the old theme of kids going somewhere they do not belong to have some crazy party, in this case it is in fact a mausoleum. The other movie I do not think really has that key feature playing that prominent role in the movie and I see the score for this one is higher too, still it was just not the movie I was expecting.$LABEL$ 0
+Like many others, I counted on the appearance of Dennis Hopper to make this not a complete waste of time. I was sadly mistaken. Everything negative said about this flic is more than true. What takes the cake however, is the horrible, horrible storyline for the main character.Here's why: The planet might be destroyed, the ONLY way to recover from it, for the ENTIRE human race to be saved trough it, is to get as many smart, capable, nice, competent people into an underground hide-out. And Dennis Hopper is the lone seer/scientist with vision who was prepared for the worst, and who has realized this. But what's the main motivation of Stevens (Sonny D'Angelo)?? He's angry because Dennis has decided who is to be saved or to be doomed! While it clearly explained to Stevens that Dennis' character has done everything to warn people of the danger but that he was laughed at. The Hopper-character was the boy with the finger in the dike, and now Stevens is blaming him for 'picking and choosing'??? And if that isn't enough, he wants to stop everybody from entering this hideout, because "it isn't fair!?" AND.... he's responsible for the death of the one guy who is humanity's saviour! OH MY GOD, how stupid can you get?What's also maddening that IMDb forces one to write minimal ten lines about this piece of crap. I mean, TWO MILLION in budget, what could have been done with that? Think Clerks, Blair Witch, and lotsa other movies who have been made for under 100.000 dollars and were still better. AAAAARGH! I count myself lucky that I didn't pay one penny to see this crap, and to sit through the end of this utter, úber-crap, is one the most heroic things I've done this year. It's no wonder that the writers of this pile of dung had jobs as camera operator and title designer before ...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.$LABEL$ 0
+Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox$LABEL$ 1
+"One Crazy Summer" is the funniest, craziest (not necessarily the best), movie I have ever seen.Just when one crazy scene is done, another emerges. It never lets you rest. Just one thing after another. The soundtrack is great. The songs are the right ones for the scenes.It is also a clean movie. Little that is dirty in it.Of course, it has the story of the guys you wouldn't trust with your lunch money, taking up a challenge, and winning over people with more resources. Who'd want to see it if they failed? There is a serious side, in that parents and children do not live up to each others' dreams. One should always have an open mind, and weigh all the options. This applies both to parents and children. In "One Crazy Summer", the parents are wrong. This is not always the case.$LABEL$ 1
+Low-budget schlockmeister Herschell Gordon Lewis reaches a new low (even for him) with "The Gore Gore Girls," a 'film' (snicker) that possesses all of his technical trademarks: badly-recorded sound, poor lighting, and OTT gore. This would be tolerable, even a bit charming, if the film at least had an interesting plot ("Blood Feast," in all its ridiculous glory, is a fine example), but "Girls" is a total snooze. Completely unlikable pompous-ass private investigator Abraham Gentry (Frank Kress) is recruited by a newspaper reporter to find out who's been murdering out-of-shape strippers (you'll stop caring who the culprit is long before these two are wrapping up the case). As before, the appeal isn't the plot, but the creative methods of bloodletting (including a girl's fanny being tenderized with a wooden mallet) and the occasional flashes of then-risqué skin...but this just isn't enough to elevate the material above tedium.$LABEL$ 0
+this was absolutely the most tragic pile of cinema to which i have ever born witness. not only was the name a complete misnomer--since the film has next to nothing to do with piranhas--but the acting is as hollow and stale as the attempt to actually make some kind of plot. when you watch this film you cannot help but spend every waking second questioning when you've had enough and it's time to turn it off. unfortunately i waited until the end in my case. that's two hours of my life that i will never be able to reclaim.$LABEL$ 0
+I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show$LABEL$ 0
+"Mr. Bug Goes To Town" was the last major achievement the Fleischer studios produced. The quality of the Superman series produced at the same time is evident in this extraordinary film.The music and lyrics by Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael (with assistance by Flieshcer veteran Sammy Timberg are quite good, but not as much as the scoring of the picture by Leigh Harline who also scored Snow White for Disney. Harline's "atmospheric music" is superb, and a treat for the ears.The layout and staging of the picture was years ahead of it's time, and once again the Fleischer's background artists outdid themselves. The techincolored beauty of the film cannot be denied, and while Hoppity the grasshopper is the star, the characters of Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito steal the picture. Swat's voicing by Jack Mercer (of Popeye fame) is priceless. Kenny Gardner (brother-in-law) of Guy Lombardo...and a featured vocalist in his band...does his usual pleasant job in the role of Dick Dickinsen.The movie has been criticized for all the wrong reasons. The Fleischer Studios were animation experts par excellence and this shows very clearly in the finished product. The movie is tuneful, the story great for all ages, and the final scenes of the bugs scrambling for their lives upon a rising skyscraper is some of the best staging and animation of any animated film past and present.Do not miss this wonderfully hand drawn film. Also don't fail to appreciate the title sequence with the most elaborate example of Max Fleischer's remarkable 3-D sterioptical process which took four months to construct and employed 16,000 tiny panes of glass in the "electrified" buildings of Manhattan.Do not miss Mr. Bug Goes To Town...aka Hoppity Goes To Town. I'll wager you'll be bug eyed at the results!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of my two or three favorite Stooges shorts, and undoubtedly Christine McIntyre's best performance with the trio. She is good in a number of other shorts, but here she is absolutely brilliant. Her singing is not funny at all, in fact it is downright beautiful, but the plot is constructed in such a way that the singing enhances the humor rather than detracting from it. We listen to McIntyre sing the entirety of Voice of Spring no less than three times, but it never gets old, partly because we don't tire of her voice, and partly because it blends so well with the Stooges' antics. The use of operatic soprano in a comedy is reminiscent of Kitty Carlisle's role in the Marx Brothers' "A Night At The Opera," but the singing is much more a part of the comedy here than in "Opera," and McIntyre (perhaps more in other performances than here) exhibited a comedic talent of her own that Carlisle never did. The Stooges' buffoonery, McIntyre's singing, and a well-constructed plot combine for 5 out of 5 stars.$LABEL$ 1
+This is supposed to be based on Wilkie Collins' _The_Woman_In_White_, but the only resemblance it bore to that story were the characters' names, the time period, and the settings. If they were going to change the story so thoroughly, I don't understand why they needed to keep up the pretense that it came from Wilkie Collins. Go read the book. It's much better.$LABEL$ 0
+Of all the British imperialist movies like Four Feathers, Charge of the Light Brigade for example, this movie stands out as the cream of the crop. It reflects a time when "the sun never set on the British Empire." Get over it. I won't go into why because so many others have expressed the many reasons that makes this film great. I have visited the Alabama Hills and have photographed the pass through which the British marched and it remains as it was, unchanged by time and encroachment by man and vandals. And even though I know it's coming, seeing Din lying dead on a stretcher and when these lines are read "Yes, Din! Din! Din!You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!Though I've belted you and flayed you,By the livin' Gawd that made you,You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" I still, at 54 years of age, get misty eyed and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The range of emotions within it is the mark of a great movie. Like the ending of another great film, Of Mice and Men.$LABEL$ 1
+James Cagney, racketeer and political ward heeler, get to become a Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and visits a boys reform school. The catch is that Cagney is not in it for the graft, he genuinely wants to make a difference in the lives of the kids there because he comes from a background like their's.The villain of the piece is Dudley Digges who is a grafting chiseler and a sanctimonious hypocrite to boot. One of the subtexts of the plot of The Mayor of Hell is that these kids are mostly immigrants and those that judge them and are in positions of power are those who are here a few generations. Note in the mess hall scene as Digges offers a prayer of thanks for the food they are about to receive, Digges is eating well, but the kids are getting quality you wouldn't feed to your pet.Cagney has his own troubles back in the city with some of his henchmen and he has to take it on the lam. That puts Digges back in charge and setting up the film for it's climax.The Mayor of Hell was a typical product from the working class studio. And because it was pre-Code it gets pretty gruesome at times. A later version of this, Crime School, with Humphrey Bogart and the Dead End Kids, was a more sanitized remake.Although Cagney is fine in the lead role as is Madge Evans the school nurse, the acting honors go to Dudley Digges. Hard to believe that the same man could portray the drunken, but kindly, one legged ship's surgeon in Mutiny on the Bounty. But Digges is a fine player and a joy to watch in every film he's in. This film is not shown to often because of the racial and ethnic stereotypes it portrays. A whole lot of minorities would be offended today. Still it's a fine film.Interestingly enough a few years ago the film Sleepers came out and it touched on some of the same issues. I guess films about reform schools don't change in any time.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this film. Not being a swooning Ed Wood Jr. fan, I prefer to appreciate his "boundless enthusiasm" and acknowledge his shortcomings. His movies are fun, but his personal story is one racked with pain. I hoped, and was delighted to find, that this film would be about understanding his turbulent life, rather than simply heaping him with posthumous praise. From beginning to end, this film evolves from a documentary into a mythology, leaving the cast and the viewer unexpectedly connected to each other and to Ed Wood Jr.What we get are people who knew Ed Wood the best talking about him from all perspectives, positive and negative, and showing us their character as much as Ed's. We get insight into Ed's personal and professional life: from his romances, to his drinking, to his sexuality, to his friends, to his enemies, and even to his film making.The film itself is shot in a low-budget way that seems done out of respect for Ed, as if using the techniques of most theatrically released movies from 1996 would be disrespectful (sort of like wearing a nicer suit than the President). The set designer uses a sense of humor and also a great deal of insight when matching each cast member with their background.Fans will be excited to hear personal testimony regarding Ed Wood controversies, and new comers will be amazed that this man was real. The DVD is full of impossible to find gems ("Crossroads of Lorado" and photo galleries), but the real treasure of this film is the surprisingly engaging and interconnected story.Ed Wood had a habit of defining people through their association with him (for better or worse), to the point where one woman will go down in history as "Swimming Pool Owner" for once letting him and his friends be baptized in her pool. This ability to define a person's legacy comes through universally, as the most amazing effect of the film is to not only give a well rounded idea of the man that was Ed Wood Jr., but also to give a comprehensive view of the community that he created. Somehow, without ever having more that one cast member being interviewed on screen at a time, the connection that Ed Wood created amongst the various people in his life becomes clear, and the viewer is left with great sense of involvement.Even the title hints at the B-list horror genre, but by the end, we see that even this is a kindness. What begins as unrelated stories by random people ends with the conclusion that all of the cast will be forever weaved into an unpredictably cohesive fabric that history will bring into haunting unity with Wood's legend.In many ways a living contradiction, Ed Wood Jr. could not be condensed to a single viewpoint. This collaborative effort is the closest to knowing him that we can ever get. Being itself a juxtaposition of themes, it is at once respectful, provocative, thoughtful, gripping, fun, sad, kind, and fulfilling.$LABEL$ 1
+Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...$LABEL$ 0
+I had been subjected to this movie for a relationship class in my school. As figured it was nothing captivating and nothing new. Though it tries to be original by focusing on the teen father instead of the mother showing the problems that the dad would go through. It had an interesting side to it but it just doesn't live up to its originality due to the fact nothing else in this movie was original. We have the main character who has the older sister who like in every other movie like this has a thing against him, we have the stay at home mother who expects too much and when he gives more she feels offended and leaves him in the dust, then we have the father who is always gone. Then the girls side we have the parents who want everything and expect her to be perfect at all she does. On to the story like I said it was interesting but the lack of good acting from the entire cast and the lack of any good writing or storytelling. Everything about this fell into cliché the little nerd kid in school starts studying with girl, they get together, have sex and then boom we have a little kid. Perhaps it could've been better had the writing been well better and had the acting been improved I've seriously gotten more emotion out of Leatherface and his chainsaw than I did out of any actor in this film and that's pretty bad seeing as the Leatherface movies are crap and horridly acted. So far the only interesting teen pregnancy movie I've seen was Juno. So far the comical side of this serious situation has proved more entertaining while still giving the same message. Like I said the idea was original most of these films focus on the teen mother but this one chose not to instead it focuses on the drama of the father but again the originality does not save this movie from mediocrity. I really hope someone decides to either re-make this movie with a better cast and a better writer or just make another similar film because this one was wasted potential.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is stuffed full of stock Horror movie goodies: chained lunatics, pre-meditated murder, a mad (vaguely lesbian) female scientist with an even madder father who wears a mask because of his horrible disfigurement, poisoning, spooky castles, werewolves (male and female), adultery, slain lovers, Tibetan mystics, the half-man/half-plant victim of some unnamed experiment, grave robbing, mind control, walled up bodies, a car crash on a lonely road, electrocution, knights in armour - the lot, all topped off with an incredibly awful score and some of the worst Foley work ever done.The script is incomprehensible (even by badly dubbed Spanish Horror movie standards) and some of the editing is just bizarre. In one scene where the lead female evil scientist goes to visit our heroine in her bedroom for one of the badly dubbed: "That is fantastical. I do not understand. Explain to me again how this is..." exposition scenes that litter this movie, there is a sudden hand held cutaway of the girl's thighs as she gets out of bed for no apparent reason at all other than to cover a cut in the bad scientist's "Mwahaha! All your werewolfs belong mine!" speech. Though why they went to the bother I don't know because there are plenty of other jarring jump cuts all over the place - even allowing for the atrocious pan and scan of the print I saw.The Director was, according to one interview with the star, drunk for most of the shoot and the film looks like it. It is an incoherent mess. It's made even more incoherent by the inclusion of werewolf rampage footage from a different film The Mark of the Wolf Man (made 4 years earlier, featuring the same actor but playing the part with more aggression and with a different shirt and make up - IS there a word in Spanish for "Continuity"?) and more padding of another actor in the wolfman get-up ambling about in long shot.The music is incredibly bad varying almost at random from full orchestral creepy house music, to bosannova, to the longest piano and gong duet ever recorded. (Thinking about it, it might not have been a duet. It might have been a solo. The piano part was so simple it could have been picked out with one hand while the player whacked away at the gong with the other.) This is one of the most bewilderedly trance-state inducing bad movies of the year so far for me. Enjoy.Favourite line: "Ilona! This madness and perversity will turn against you!" How true.Favourite shot: The lover, discovering his girlfriend slain, dropping the candle in a cartoon-like demonstration of surprise. Rank amateur directing there.$LABEL$ 1
+There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...$LABEL$ 0
+Another film to punish us for the crime of enjoying "Pulp Fiction."If you like watching people get killed by machine gun fire for an hour and a half, this'll probably fit the bill. Fans of the debut episode of "Aeon Flux," wherein the title character slays literally thousands of seemingly faceless soldiers single-handedly, will really go for it.Otherwise, it's not exactly a clever movie. In fact, all it is is an excuse for a bunch of young people to act rude and shoot people. Sometimes an entire scene goes by, and the only thing that happens is, you guessed it! someone gets shot. Or, to spice things up, twenty people get shot. First, they're just sitting there, the next minute, they're sitting there dead. Yahoo!Rough plot: A young American goes to Paris (An American in Paris, get it?), hires a prostitute (the ethereal Julie Delpy), gets in touch with some old French buddies, one of which has AIDS, they plan and attempt a bank heist. Of course, movie convention states that no bank robberies on film go off w/o a hitch, and this hitch takes up about three-quarters of the running time (it's like "Dog Day Afternoon" without the Sidney Lumet's wit, patience, or humanity). While at the bank, things go wrong (surprise!), and the Parisian with AIDS, goes wacko with his Uzi several HUNDRED times. No spoilers here, but suffice to say that you're at such an emotional distance from these characters that it's not likely you'll care who lives and who dies by the end of the film.Some have called it stylish. Perhaps it is, but it's someone else's style, it's a movie that's already been done, and "Killing Zoe" is trapped by convention. Nowhere in the course of the movie does the director (Roger Avary, co-winner of the "Pulp Fiction" screenplay Oscar) do anything really original, stylish, funky, or outrageous. Unless you consider the fact that no movie that has taken place inside a bank has had such a high body count, there isn't anything else to set this one apart from the multitude.$LABEL$ 0
+When the Romulans come, they will not be bearing gifts; no, they bring with them war - war and conquest. As any familiar with this episode know, it is a redux of the war film "The Enemy Below" from the fifties. The obvious difference is that instead of a battleship and a submarine (or an American Destroyer & German U-boat) engaged in lethal war games, it is two starships in outer space. In Trek history, about 100 years before the events here, according to this episode, Earth fought the Romulan Wars. After about 5 years of conflict, a stalemate brought about a treaty and the institution of the Neutral Zone, a boundary between us and the Romulan Empire. Now, on this stardate, the treaty appears to be broken, as our outposts are being attacked and destroyed by some weapon of immense power. Yes, the Romulans are back, testing their new war toy, and Kirk must now earn his pay: he must make decisions that would affect this sector of the galaxy, such as figuring out how to avoid a...oh, I dunno - an interstellar war, maybe? I think what makes this episode so effective is that it doesn't shy away from the grim aspects of war, as one would expect of a mere TV episode from the sixties - especially an episode from a science fiction show. It's all very tense and gripping, like the best war films, such as when Kirk sits down with his key officers for what amounts to a war council. The writers and the actors aren't kidding around here: this is all preparation for a ghastly conflict, potentially the beginning of another years-long battleground. In the final analysis, Kirk's aim is to keep this battleground to just the two ships - but even then it's an endeavor fraught with peril and probable casualties. In fact, I believe this episode holds the record for ship casualties by the end of it. Right at the start of the episode, we see the devastation such battle can produce, in that supposedly well-protected outpost. Then begin the cat-and-mouse war games between the Enterprise and the Romulan ship - it's as exciting as any conflict we've seen on the big screen. Of course, if you're not into war films, you'd have to look for other things to admire in this episode.What elevates this episode even further is the revelation of just what and who the Romulans are - it's an electric shock of a sort. Now we have even further inter-crew conflict on the bridge of the Enterprise - war does tend to bring out the worst in some people. Due to still nasty attitudes about race in this future, the tension is ratcheted up even further - Kirk has his hands full in this one. I suppose the one weakness in the story is the convenient relenting of the bigotry issue by the conclusion. On the Romulan side, actor Lenard makes his first appearance in the Trek universe as the Romulan commander; he's terrific in the role, the flip side of Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pike, take your pick, done up to resemble Spock more than a little. Surprisingly, his character is not war hungry as we would expect, another eye-opener for this episode. The actor would next return to this universe as Sarek, Spock's father, so he's nothing if not versatile. It's also telling how the first appearance of such characters as the Romulans is usually their best shot, as it is here. They showed up in "The Enterprise Incident" next.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a movie that I had heard about all my life growing up, but had never seen it until a few years ago. It's reputation truly proceeded it. I knew of Michael Myers, had seen the mask, saw commercials for all of the crummy sequels that followed. But I was growing up during the decade where Jason and Freddy had a deadly grip on the horror game, and never thought much of the Halloween franchise. Boy, how I was being cheated with cheap knock offs.Halloween is a genuinely terrifying movie. Now, by today's standards, it isn't as graphic and visceral, but this film delivers on all the other levels most horror movies fail to achieve today. The atmosphere that John Carpenter creates is so creepy, and the fact that it is set in a quaint, mid-west town is a testament to his ability. The lighting effects are down right horrifying, with "The Shape" seemingly appearing and disappearing into the shadows at will. The simple yet brutally effective music score only adds to the suspense.The performances by all the players are well done, with specific nods to Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance. Ms. Curtis is such a good Laurie Strode because she is so likable and vulnerable. It is all the more frightening when she is being stalked by Michael Myers because the director and viewer have invested so much into her, we want her to survive and get away.Donald Pleasance plays Dr. Loomis like a man on a mission, and it works well. He adds a sense of urgency to the predicament the town finds itself in because he knows what evil stalks their streets.Overall, not only is Halloween a great horror movie, but also a great film. It works on many levels and draws the audience in and never lets up. This should be standard viewing for anyone wanting to experience a truly scary movie. And for an even more frightful time, try watching it alone with the lights off. Don't be surprised if you think you see "The Shape" lurking around in the shadows!$LABEL$ 1
+Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original "Lonesome Dove" than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between "Lonesome Dove" and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no "Lonesome Dove". In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to "Lonesome Dove", there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right.$LABEL$ 1
+I wasn't really interested in seeing Step Up, but my friend just kept bugging and bugging me to see this film, especially since she is so in love with Channing Tatum, I tease her constantly about it saying how that's the only reason why she loved the movie. But she somehow convinced me that it was a movie worth seeing, that if I loved movies like Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance, that I should love Step Up, eh, what the heck? I guess every movie in some way has it's right to a view.Well, you know those movies I just mentioned up top? Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance? Well, put them in a blender with some gangsta love in it and that's what you have. Not to mention if you've seen those movies, well, frankly, you have seen Step Up. Because Channing is lower class with street smarts who just naturally feels the music while that snobby up class girl must follow step by step, how will they ever fall in love if they are so different? After all, this is their chance to "step up" to the passion, the mystery, and the lust of the dance! OK, that was a silly plot explanation, but like I said, as long as you've seen those movies I mentioned, or even if you just saw the plot, you get the movie. I don't understand how it actually has a 5.5 rating, I bet it's those Channing lovers! LOL! I'm kidding with you guys, but it's all good, I guess I just didn't get what others did with the passion, the mystery that is the dance! Oh, Antonio Bandares, where are you when we need you?! 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't seen BSG, I tried to watch it once in the middle of the show but couldn't get into it. However, I saw Caprica Rebirth yesterday I felt a little lost, so I decided to watch the Pilot today and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. I think this is a promising show and the only side effect it had on me is that now I want to watch BSG as well.But what I really liked is that I didn't have to be a hardcore BSG fan to understand what's going on in Caprica. From what I have read in the net, they were trying to reach the female population since BSG reached way more men, and at least in my case it worked.However, I suggest that if you are trying to watch the show do it from the beginning starting with the Pilot.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, it turned out as I expected: visual overload but nothing else added to the original. What did surprise me however was that the storyline was fairly drastically changed compared to the 1968 flick. Initially this awoke my interest, but what eventually surprised was that the new twists and turns (a) were apparently invented in order to present us with a typical Hollywood-like product and (b) made the whole storyline improbable! The 1968 story was breathtakingly straightforward, and included no time-storms or any bogus of that sort: it just stated that when you come home after a long journey, things might have changed a bit. Earth might have fallen in the hands of apes, for example. Like many 'old' movies, it's main ingredient was suspense (hell, does anyone understand that word these days?). In this Burton movie, an attempt has been made to turn the whole thing into an action movie, but at what cost? Surely, the images are overwhelming, and a lot of time and money has been put into the design of a complete ape-culture (even ape-music!), but what's wrong?First, the suspension of disbelief is made very hard, because the apes have a lot of Hollywood-human traits. I refer especially to Ari and the slave-trader. These traits include emotional skills like irony, sarcasm, and an overtly displayed array of 'subtle' emotions. It makes you forget that the apes are apes, which is essential.Second, the humans TALK. Of course, we can imagine that humans will never forget how to speak, but the fact that the apes had speech and the humans didn't made the ape/human role-switching very tangible and stressing in the 1968 version. The wound in the throat that Charlton Heston gets there is essential to his survival and his later regained speech essential to his uniqueness and the interest that Dr. Zira has in him (so, no need for things like human rights activists or ape-human love in order to explain things).Third, the fact that they talk ads a great deal to the implausibility, but is a necessary twist in the new movie, since Capt. Davidson has to play the Hollywood-let's-save-the-whole-world- and-have-a-good-ending-for-everyone- and-still-make-it-to-the-lounge-bar- for-a-cool-diet-coke character. Oh my god, will they never learn? I new it from the start, when there was only one guy who got lost! They were in need of a hero! And then the script writers go on reasoning: we need one guy... so, why would one guy get lost... because he tries to save an ape from an electromagnetic storm... implausible! But it's necessary because it shows the audience that he respects apes! Since, in these modern and politically correct times, we can't have a xenophobic ape-hater like Charlton Heston's 68 character loose on the screen: let's give them a bubblegum version!Fourth, okay, the general twist of the original 'discovering the truth' of the 1968 film to the modern version (he finds that his own mother ship crashed on the planet ages ago and that their lab-apes developed their society, where Heston simply discovered that just, somehow, the apes overtook the earth while he was away) is nicely done. The second, battle-part comes as an anti-climax. That's because this movie has added the first two Planet Of The Apes movies in one plot. Nice try, but the chill you feel when Davidson and you discover that he's lost on the planet forever just washes out due to the uninteresting battle-part.Fifth: the ending!!! For chrissakes, who came up with that?! (a) Davidson crashes TWICE with his escape pod, which seems an unsteerable object, while the chimp manages to simply land gracefully? Come on, who'd believe that? If the pods are really small space crafts (Davidson simply flies off into space at the end) and not merely escape vessels, he might have managed a safe landing at least once, no? And what about that ending???? I mean, in the original film it was clear that everything took place on earth. But here: the whole movie takes place on a distant planet, and suddenly the same (there's a Thade statue) ape culture is on earth??? How come? Did the apes of the far planet evolve technologically, flew into the time storm and colonised earth before Davidson's mission took off? Why is Thade worshiped? Stupid stupid stupid.Helena Bonham Carter is even adorable and beautiful as an ape, but I'd expected no less. I preferred her ape above Estella Warren as a human, but maybe I got some loose wire in my head. Nevertheless, the only convincing apes were Tim Roth as Thade (wonderful!) and Ari's household ape (the ex-general, but I forgot his name).Nonono, a lot of things could and should have been added/altered to the 1968 pic, but not the plot, at least not in that way. It was simple and clear and needed no additional explaining. It was nicely tongue-in cheek and caricatured. Don't stylize everything...$LABEL$ 0
+Cooley High was actually a drama with moments of comedy. It was a reflection of high school life back in the day. I attended Coolidge High in Washington, D.C. from 1976 to 1979 and much of what was in Cooley High was an every day thing at Coolidge. As a matter of fact after the movie came out everybody started calling Coolidge "Cooley High." Getting high, shooting dice, chasing girls, basement parties, and fights, that sums up high school life for many in D.C. back in the day. I can't forget Motown because Motown music began and ended many a day back in the 70s. The hits just kept coming. However, Cooley High adds a layer of humanity over the craziness because when all was said and done just like in Cooley High my classmates and I had a lot of love for each other. And like the characters in Cooley High there was life after high school, but there was nothing like waking up every morning and experiencing each day to the fullest from homeroom to seventh period. Thirty years later we are getting ready to celebrate those good times. Cooley High is definitely a period piece that just gets better with time because like it or not the only thing left from those days are memories, some good, and some bad.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great movie for any fan of Hong Kong action movies. Asides from it's little plot, the weak drama and bits of comedy antics, the movie is action packed with gun-fighting and martial arts action. Kept me entertained from beginning until the end. I thought Shannon Lee was awesome in the movie.Having an action director like Corey Yuen is what keeps Hong Kong action going strong. This modern action film is highly recommended!!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork… And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup… Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push… Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.$LABEL$ 0
+Loved the film! This was my first glimpse at both Reese Witherspoon and Jason London, both of which are two of my favorites. Must say that no matter how many times I've seen this movie I can't help but tear up. One of those movies that should become a classic for all.$LABEL$ 1
+Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .Obligatory Horror Elements:- Subgenre: Slasher- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.- - -Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug! -AP3-$LABEL$ 0
+"The Mayor Of Hell" has the feel of an early Dead End Kids film, but with a much harder edge and very few light spots, preceding the first appearance of the Dead Enders by four years. James Cagney has a full screen opening credit, even though technically, the 'mayor' of the movie's title is actually portrayed by Frankie Darro, one of several boys sent to reform school during the opening scenes. Darro's character is Jimmy Smith, a young tough who's befriended by 'Patsy' Gargan (Cagney), and is elected to the position when Gargan takes a chance at humanizing conditions at a state reformatory.Warner Brothers made a lot of these types of films, attempting to provide a conscience of sorts in an era that only too well knew about the effects of crime and poverty. This movie is quite gritty, with no apologies for ethnic stereotyping, as in the submissive posture of a black father in court or the way a Jewish kid gets to run a candy shop in the reform school. The rules at the reformatory are simple enough - work hard and keep your mouth shut; step out of line and you answer personally to Warden Thompson (Dudley Digges).Cagney's role in the story seems somewhat ambiguous, since even though he makes a serious effort to improve conditions inside the reformatory, on the outside he's still nominally in control of a criminal racket. The film's attempt to juggle this dichotomy falls short in my estimation, the finale attempts to wrap things up in a neat package as Gargan awaits the outcome of a near fatal shooting of one of his henchmen. Not exactly the kind of role modeling one would look for in a film like this.Warner Brothers would sanitize some of the elements of this story in a 1938 remake titled "Crime School", featuring Humphrey Bogart in the Cagney role, and Billy Halop in the Frankie Darro part. If you're partial to the Dead End Kids you'll probably like the latter film better, since it also offers familiar faces like Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Bobby Jordan and Gabriel Dell. However the ending is somewhat muddied in that one too, with Bogart's warden character involved in a cover up of a prison breakout. Both films offer a romantic interest for the lead characters, in 'Mayor', Madge Evans is a reform minded nurse that falls for Cagney's character.Curiously, a lot of James Cagney's early films aren't commercially available, so you'll have to keep your eyes peeled for a screening on Turner Classics, or source the film from a private collector. Personally, I can't get enough of this kind of stuff, and find intriguing points of interest in the films of all genres from the Thirties and Forties.$LABEL$ 1
+This two-part TV mini-series isn't as good as the original from 1966 but it's solid. The original benefited from a huge number of things---it was all in black and white, it had a great jazz score and it was filmed at the real locations, including the home of the doomed Clutter family. That was important because in the book and in the original movie the home is very much a character itself.This remake was filmed in Canada which I guess doubles okay for Kansas. The story tries to be as sympathetic to Perry as it dares to and Eric Roberts plays him as a somewhat fey person, his homosexuality barely hidden. The gentler take by Roberts doesn't quite work in the end though because it's hard to believe that his version of Perry Smith would just finally explode in a spasm of murder. Whereas Robert Blake's take on Smith left you no doubt that his Perry Smith was an extremely dangerous character.Anthony Edwards was excellent as the bombastic, big-mouthed and ultimately cowardly Dick Hickcock, the brains of the outfit. His performance compares very well to Scott Wilson's role in the original movie.Since this is a longer movie it allows more time to develop the Clutter family and in this regard I think the 1996 movie has an advantage. The Clutters are just an outstanding, decent family. They've never harmed another soul and it is just inexplicable that such a decent family is ultimately massacred in such a horrifying way. It still boggles my mind that, after the Clutters were locked in the bathroom, that Herb Clutter didn't force out the window so at least his children would have a chance to escape. This movie has the thought occur to him, but too late. From what I read about the real home, which is still standing, the way the bathroom is configured they could've opened the counter drawers and effectively barricaded the door which would've forced the killers to blast their way in. But it might've bought time for some of the Clutters to escape. Why the Clutters didn't try this, I have no idea.Fans of the book will recognize that this movie takes a lot of liberties with how the crime is committed but not too serious. Still, it's distracting to viewers like me who have read tons about the case. The actors playing the cops, led by Sam Neill and Leo Rossi, are uniformly excellent, much better, I think, as a group, than the actors in the original movie. They know that to secure the noose around the necks of both of them they have to get them to confess. And the officers come to the interview impeccably prepared. They had already discovered the likely alibi the phony story of going to Fort Scott, and had debunked every jot of it. The officers then let Smith & Hickcock just walk into their trap. Hickcock is a b.s. artist who figures he can convince anyone of anything and the officers respectfully let him tell his cover story. But when they lower the boom on him, he shatters very quickly. It's very well filmed and acted and very gratifying to watch because the viewer naturally should loath Hickcock in particular by this point, a cowardly con-man who needs the easily manipulated Smith to do his killing for him. Supposedly Hickcock later stated that the real reason for the crime wasn't to steal money from the Clutters but to rape Nancy Clutter. At least she was spared that degradation.The actors playing the Clutters are very good, Kevin Tighe as Herb Clutter in particular. The story sensitively deals with Mrs. Clutter's emotional problems, most likely clinical depression, and Mrs. Clutter displays remarkable inner strength when she firmly and strongly demands that the killers leave her daughter alone. From what I've read the Clutters' surviving family was particularly bothered by how Bonnie Clutter was portrayed in the book, claiming it was entirely untrue. But as an aside, both of the killers related to the police how Mr. Clutter asked them to not bother his wife because of her long illness. Capote might make up that fiction to make the character of Bonnie more interesting but certainly the killers had no reason to falsely portray Mrs. Clutter and no doubt much of the conversation in the book (duplicated in the movies) is right off the taped confessions of the killers. So it would've been nonsensical for Herb to have said that and not have it be true.$LABEL$ 1
+The pilot is extremely well done. It lays out how the characters bond in future episodes. I don't think anyone could have created a better pilot for this show. It displays remarkable creativity on the writers part. Although not everything was straightened out because it was the very first episode, a lot of events that happen in future seasons were demonstrated in the pilot. An example would be Ross and Rachels future relationship. Even though the nervousness of a first episode appeared, it was overcome by an amazing plot and outstanding cast choice.Bravo.A great start to an unbeatable comedy!$LABEL$ 1
+This miserable film is a remake of a 1927 film. They should have let it remain that way.What a colossal bomb! Douglas Fairbanks displays absolutely no charisma here. Cesar Romero is subjected to a role as a real jerk and Bette Grable sings with a chorus- What I'll Do to that Hungarian!The ridiculous plot deals with a picture of a woman in a castle in 1561 Rome that saved the day by killing a conqueror. (Fairbanks) Now, let's fast forward to 300 years later, where Grable, just married to the Count Romero, faces a similar situation, when on her wedding night, there is an invasion by Hungarian soldiers.Romero acts cowardly and flees before the army arrives. He disguises himself as a gypsy and is made to remain at the castle when his violin playing pleases Fairbanks. The ending is worse than the entire wretched film when Grable meets Fairbanks to tell him the good news-an enraged Romero has annulled the marriage.This poor imitation of a movie was made in 1948. As Harry Davenport, a veteran supporting player who is in it, died in 1949; this must have been his last film. What a bomb to go out with after such a distinguished career.Walter Abel co-stars but he can do little with such poor writing. The costumes look more like those that would come out of the stone age. I can't fathom what Fairbanks was wearing.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to start off by apologizing because I thought the first 75-80% of this film was hilarious. It's mostly because of Brad Pitt's performance. Spot on.The acting by all involved was quite good but Brad stole the movie. The atmosphere was perfect in all respects. I'm not a giant Pitt fan but this has got to be one of his best roles ever.Brutal,Honest,Gritty. All good words to describe this movie.I was reading a previous review and the person said that the reasoning behind Early's violence isn't explained. It is explained but they thankfully don't have to go into graphic detail to get their point across.Overall I gave this a 9 because every scene bar 1 or 2 was effective. I think the humor in the first half or so is perfect for this movie. Underrated.$LABEL$ 1
+This is Burt Reynolds'"Citizen Kane".Tragically nothing else he was ever involved in came close to approaching "Sharkey's Machine".It seemed to me that he put everything he had into it.It is a movie that is in love with movies.The opening sequence where Detective Sharkey single-handedly rescues a bus-load of hostages is an immensely exciting piece of cinema. Everything moves so quickly once it has started to go wrong that it appears to take on a life of its own,a brilliantly achieved effect. It looks cold,tense and dangerous on Mr Reynolds' streets. The precinct house looks dirty and tired,full of desperate people on both sides of the law,shouting,cursing out,trying to do deals or just stay alive.Into this underworld descends the recently demoted Sharkey - a reward for a bungled drugs bust(caused by a corrupt cop) - he and his team are part of the vice squad.Information they pick up concerning a crooked politician leads them into the world of high-class call girls and ruthless drug barons. Watching the apartment of one such call-girl(Rachel Ward)Sharkey falls in love with her portrait on the wall(I know,I know)and when a woman's body is found with its face shot off in one of the rooms,he thinks its her.(Well,I did say it was a movie that loved movies). The scene where she walks in on him works beautifully,even if you have seen the original. The film is full of good touches,I particularly like Charles Durning's war story,subtly acted and shot in sharp contrast to Sharkey's abduction and torture which is suitably harsh and brutal. I must mention Vittorio Gassman and Henry Silva as two disparate but equally evil brothers with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. They are "full on" every time they're on screen and are no loss to society when their time comes,Mr Silva's end being extra special indeed. As has been mention,this is a Clint Eastwood movie that Clint never made.The biggest compliment I can pay "Sharkey's Machine" is to point out that in my opinion Clint Eastwood couldn't have made a better job of it. The soundtrack is of an equally high standard,featuring Sarah Vaughan,Joe Williams,Julie London,Chet Baker and other top class artists. Randy Crawford's "Street Life" plays behind the title sequence,and I can never hear it without ,in my mind's eye,seeing Sharkey striding along the sidewalk. Like other correspondents I have never understood why this film was a bit of a flop.I hope it is due for a critical revision,particularly at a time when so many cop movies and shows without a quarter of its energy , freshness and sheer joie de vivre are lauded from the rooftops. If you're ever tempted to think of Burt Reynolds as a burnt - out one - trick pony,put "Sharkey's Machine" in your video machine.I promise you won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+Without a doubt, one of Tobe Hoppor's best! Epic storytellng, great special effects, and The Spacegirl (vamp me baby!).$LABEL$ 1
+This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality.$LABEL$ 0
+This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around.$LABEL$ 1
+Don't see this movie. Bad acting and stupid gore effects. A complete waste of time. I was hoping to see a lot of cool murders and hot chicks,instead the director depended on animal slaughter videos to shock you, the watcher. Disgusting. The murders are pretty lame, basically strangulation. One woman he stuffs worms in her mouth, one he puts raw hamburgers on her face and strangles her. BTK = BTK broiler, burger king's "killer" new sandwich....ha ha. I don't think this movie relied too much on actual facts. I mean, he real BTK killer didn't carry around a bunch of rodents, scorpions and worms..and oh yeah...a slaughtered cow head too. Go figure.$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes. He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!$LABEL$ 0
+Office work, especially in this era of computers, multi-functional copy machines, e-mail, voice mail, snail mail and `temps,' is territory ripe with satirical possibilities, a vein previously tapped in such films as `Clockwatchers' and `Office Space,' and very successfully. This latest addition to the temp/humor pool, however, `Haiku Tunnel,' directed by Josh Kornbluth and Jacob Kornbluth, fails to live up to it's predecessors, and leaves the laughs somewhere outside the door, waiting for a chance to sneak in. Unfortunately for the audience, that chance never comes; so what you get is a nice try, but as the man once said, no cigar.	As the narrator/star of the film, Josh Kornbluth (playing Josh Kornbluth), points out in the opening frames (in a monologue delivered directly into the camera), this story is pure fiction, and takes place in the fictional city of `San Franc'l'isco.' It's an innovative, if not very imaginatively presented disclaimer, and not all that funny. It is, however, a harbinger of what is to follow, all of which-- like the disclaimer-- just isn't all that funny.	Kornbluth plays Kornbluth, an aspiring novelist who supports himself working as a `temp.' It's a job that suits him, and it gives him time to slip in some work on his novel from time to time. But when he goes to work for a lawyer, Bob Shelby (Warren Keith), he does too good a job on the first day, and Shelby dispatches head secretary Marlina D'Amore (Helen Shumaker) to Kornbluth to persuade him to go `perm.' The thought of working full time for the same company, though, initially strikes fear in the heart of Kornbluth, but he caves in and signs on for the position. He's nervous about it, but at least now the other secretaries acknowledge his presence (which, of course, they would never do with a temp), and if things get too rough, he has seventeen important letters he's typed up-- that now just have to be mailed out-- to fall back on (he's been holding them back because the mailing is the easy part, and he needs that `something easy to do' in reserve, in case it all gets to be too much for him). These are `important' letters, however, and by the end of the week, Kornbluth still has them in reserve, on his desk. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when Shelby finds out about it, Kornbluth's days as the fair-haired boy are going to be over. And quick.	The Brothers Kornbluth, who not only directed, but along with John Bellucci also wrote the screenplay for this film, should have taken a page out of the Ben Stiller Book of Comedy, where it says `If you play it straight, they will laugh.' But, they didn't, and the audience won't. Because in comedy, even looking at it as objectively as possible, when the main character (as well as most of the supporting characters, in this case) `Plays' funny-- as in, he `knows' he's being funny-- he never is. And that's exactly what Kornbluth does here; so rather than being `funny,' he comes across as insincere and pretentious, a grievous error in judgment on the part of the Kornbluths, because by allowing it, they sabotaged their own movie. 	In trying to discern exactly why this movie doesn't work, it comes down to two basic reasons: The directing, which-- if not necessarily `bad'-- is at least careless; and secondly, the performances, beginning with that of Josh Kornbluth. Quite simply, Kornbluth just seems too impressed with himself to be effective here. Unlike Stiller, or even Steve Martin-- both of whom use self-deprecating humor very effectively-- Kornbluth apparently has an ego that simply will not allow putting himself in that light; he seems to have a need to let his audience know that he, the real Kornbluth, is in reality much more clever than Kornbluth the character. And being unable to get past that does him in, as well as the film. Rather than give the millions of office workers who may see this film someone to whom they can relate or with whom they can identify, Kornbluth affects a condescending manner that only serves to alienate the very people he is attempting to reach. So what it all comes down to is a case of poor directing and unconvincing acting, and when you take into consideration that the screenplay itself was weak to begin with, with an inexplicably narrow focus (given the potential of the rich subject matter), it's easy to understand why this one just doesn't fly.	The one saving grace of the film is the performance by Warren Keith as Shelby, whose subtle delivery is convincing, and which-- in and of itself-- is fairly humorous. The effectiveness of it is diminished, however, inasmuch as Keith has to share his scenes with Kornbluth, which somewhat automatically cancels out his positive contributions to the project. 	Shumaker and Sarah Overman (Julie Faustino) also manage to keep their heads above water with their respective performances, which are commendable, if not entirely memorable; they at least make their scenes watchable, and Overman even manages to elevate Kornbluth's performance, if only momentarily. But it's still not enough to save the day or the film.	The supporting cast includes Amy Resnick (Mindy), Brian Thorstenson (Clifford), June Lomena (DaVonne), Joe Bellan (Jimmy the Mail Clerk), with a cameo appearance by a disheveled looking Harry Shearer, as the Orientation Leader-- a role that begs for an answer to the question, `What was he thinking when he agreed to this?' In any work environment, there will forever be situations arising that one way or another will unavoidably become fodder for someone's comedic cannon, and the films depicting said situations will always be with us; the good ones (see paragraph one) may even become classics in their own right. `Haiku Tunnel,' however, will doubtfully remain very long amongst them, for it's destiny lies elsewhere-- in a realm known only as: `Obscurity.' I rate this one 1/10.  $LABEL$ 0
+This film was not only one of John Ford's own personal favorites but also numbered directors Sergei M. Eisenstein and Bertrand Tavernier among its high-profile admirers. Ironically, I've just caught up with it myself via Criterion's recent 2-Disc Set after missing out on a couple of original language screenings of it on Italian TV many years ago and again a few times on TV while in Hollywood! The film marked Ford's first of nine collaborations with Henry Fonda and is also a quintessential example of Ford's folksy Americana vein. A beautifully made and pictorially quite poetic piece of work, the courtroom sequences (and eventual revelation) in its second half still pack quite a wallop, apart from giving stalwart character actor Donald Meek a memorably meaty role as the prosecuting attorney.Fonda is, of course, perfectly cast as a bashful, inexperienced but rigorous and humanistic lawyer who was destined to become President; Fonda would go on to portray other fictitious politicians on film - most notably in Franklin J. Schaffner's THE BEST MAN (1964) and Sidney Lumet's FAIL-SAFE (1964) - and it's surprising now to learn that he was reluctant at the time about accepting the role of Lincoln since, in his view, that was "like playing God"! It is interesting to note here that Ford had previously tackled Abraham Lincoln (tangentially) in THE PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND (1936), a superb but perhaps little-known gem which has, luckily, just been released as a Special Edition DVD by the UK's veritable Criterion stand-in, Eureka's "Masters Of Cinema" label. Besides, I also have two more Abraham Lincoln films in my DVD collection which I've yet to watch and, incidentally, both were directed by D. W. Griffith - THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) and ABRAHAM LINCOLN (1930) - and, had I not just received a bunch of films I've never watched before just now, I would have gladly given them a spin based on my highly-satisfying viewing experience with YOUNG MR. LINCOLN.$LABEL$ 1
+This familiar story of an older man/younger woman is surprisingly hard-edged. Bikers, hippies, free love and jail bait mix surprisingly well in this forgotten black-and-white indie effort. Lead actress Patricia Wymer, as the titular "Candy," gives the finest performance of her career (spanning all of 3 drive-in epics). Wymer was precocious and fetching in THE YOUNG GRADUATES (1971), but gives a more serious performance in THE BABYSITTER. The occasional violence and periodic nudity are somewhat surprising, but well-handled by the director. Leads Wymer and George E. Carey sell the May/December romance believably. There are enough similarities between THE BABYSITTER and THE YOUNG GRADUATES to make one wonder if the same director helmed the latter film as well. Patricia Wymer, where are you?Hailing from Seattle, WA, Miss Wymer had appeared as a dancer on the TV rock and roll show MALIBU U, before gracing the cover (as well as appearing in an eight-page spread) of the August, 1968 issue of "Best For Men," a tasteful adults-only magazine. She also appeared as a coven witch in the popular 1969 cult drive-in shocker THE WITCHMAKER.THE BABYSITTER has finally made its home video debut, as part of the eight-film BCI box set DRIVE-IN CULT CLASSICS vol. 3, which is available from Amazon.com and some retail stores such as Best Buy.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to admit, that out of the many many thriller movies i have seen, this has to be one of the worst. I was shocked to discover that this piece of work had a 1.5 mil budget. When it started, i thought that the opening sequence was pretty good, fairly standard for this kind of film, but pretty good anyway. But as the film progressed i began to feel distinctly uncomfortable with the lack of pace that i was seeing, each sequence seemed to take hours. The reason for this could have been that by now the film had already bored me to tears, nothing was happening other than endless accusations peppered with confusing flashbacks and the occasional fit of bad temper. Well ... after wading through what felt like a lifetime of these scenes we finally reached the big finale...an all singing, all dancing demonstration of how lack of imagination can completely ruin what could have been a good film.Overall i found this movie predictable and tedious and I would not recommend this film to anyone other than those people i personally dislike, but if you have a couple of hours to waste and you want to watch a thriller that is not even remotely scary, this is the movie for you.$LABEL$ 0
+Andy Lau and Lau Ching-Wan are both superb in Johnny To's tautly directed crime thriller which puts most Western efforts to shame. Think of it as the Hong Kong 'Heat', only better! Everything about the film screams class; from the performances to the soundtrack, the cinematography to the script. The tone remains serious throughout, but the film has a nice line in black-humour, friendship and romance at it's heart. Sure, it gets a little preposterous later on, but it would be a hard-hearted viewer who didn't find something to love about this movie. Thank God, Hollywood hasn't (yet) re-made and ruined a classic. Do yourself a favour and see this film!$LABEL$ 1
+It Could Have Been A Marvelous Story Based On The Ancient Races Of Cat People, but it wasn't.This work could have been just that; marvelous and replete with mythological references which kept my fascination fueled. The lead characters (Charles Brady played by Brian Krause; and his mother Mary, played by Alice Krige) were shallowly done, had no depth of personality and were hardly likable or drawing. Not even Mädchen Amick (who played Tanya Robertson)'s character fit into that description. However, as I've said many times before, when you adapt a Stephen King novel for TV, you simply must take into account the fact that his books aren't written for TV, and his screenplay talent sadly lacks the fire and depth he exhibits as a novelist. This is another botched attempt to take the magick of Stephen King writing, whether that is of his novels or an original screenplay. To simply cut and paste his work onto the small screen. His novels get completely bastardized in the process and all you end up creating is a nice movie; nothing less but certainly nothing more. His screenplays are hit and miss. Unfortunately, this screenplay translation was a miss. Sorry, Sorry, Sorry movie.This movie gets a 1.0/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 0
+"Speck" was apparently intended to be a biopic related to serial killer Richard Speck. There is, however, not much killing to be found in this movie, and none of it is explicitly shown. The most disturbing scene in the entire movie is perhaps when Speck stomps one of the eight unfortunate nurses to death in her own bathtub, yet even this is merely implied, and not shown, save for a few unconvincing downward thrusts of Mr. Speck's leg. The most entertaining part of this movie is most likely the voice-over, which should be a testament to the mind-numbingly boring nature of this movie. Every aspect of this movie is horrible. Unless you have a fondness for boredom, don't bother. This movie only clocks in at 72 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.$LABEL$ 0
+Fast-paced, funny, sexy, and spectacular. Cagney is always terrific. Blondel charms you with her wit and energy. It's obvious that this is a pre-censorship film by the innuendo in the script, the costumes,and the way they touch each other. And bikinis before there were bikinis! This is no holds barred fun for everyone. I don't understand the John Garfield issue though. Does it matter whether or not he's in this film? If he is, he screen is so short that he's basically a prop. You need to watch it frame by frame to even find him if he's there. I'm a big Cagney fan, but had never seen this one before. I found it on Turner Classics. I found it by wonderful accident. Sit back and enjoy the ride!$LABEL$ 1
+as an actor I really like independent films but this one is amateur at best.The boys go to Vermont for a civil service yet when the plane lands it flies over a palm tree - were the directors aware that palm trees are not in Vermont? Pines yes - palms no. And the same for the wedding service - again nice grove of palm trees.When the boys are leaving VT they apparently could not get a ticket on any major airline since the plane that is filmed is Federal Express. Did they ship themselves Overnight in a crate? Come on guys little details like this separate an indi film from totally amateur.The Christian brother is far gayer than Arthur with his bleached hair and tribal band tattoo. The two should have switched roles.The minor characters are laughable and overact something terrible.Applause to the directors for making a gay film but pay some attention to your locations and casting next time$LABEL$ 0
+As much as I love Ellen Barkin (who is really underrated) I have to boo this movie. If you can't tell who did it AND why in the first half hour you obviously have never seen a psycho-sexual thriller or have never watched 20/20. It's like the filmmakers and actors didn't care that they way they were shooting it and they way they were playing the characters would be a dead giveaway.Overall, this movie serves to turn-on the dirty perverts who like to mix violence and sex. Not a fun movie to sit through, although if you like Ellen Barkin it's nice to see her place a tough lady.$LABEL$ 0
+While William Shater can always make me smile in anything he appears in, (and I especially love him as Denny Crane in Boston Legal), well, this show is all about glitz and dancing girls and screaming and jumping up and down.It has none of the intelligence of Millionaire, none of the flair of Deal or No Deal.This show is all about dancing and stupid things to fill in the time.I watched it of course just to check it out. I did watch it for over 45 minutes, then I had to turn it off.The best part of it was William Shatner dancing on the stage. He is a hoot!!! unfortunately, this show WILL NOT MAKE IT.That's a given$LABEL$ 0
+There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.$LABEL$ 0
+Everyone likes the coolly created, memorable heist movie. Alain Delon provides the antihero, Melville provides the cool, and a handful of other great talent (Yves Montand, Gian Maria Volonte, and Andre Bourvil, mostly) arrives to add a crisp engaging movie......with very little dialog. This is great, because one certain aspect of the genre tends to be a lot of dialog involving the quick-witted and their various repartees. This movie, however, could be watched with the sound completely off and not too terribly much would be missed. Not to say the sound is bad, oh no, the jazzy soundtrack and the crisp audio catching the little movements makes the slow, patient deliberation of the patients very compelling.What's also really neat about this film is that the color cinematography is pretty fantastic. Usually when it comes to cinematography, black and white movies tend to stick out in my mind, but this film has some very strong and beautiful imagery that makes the movie pure visual pleasure to observe.--PolarisDiB$LABEL$ 1
+"Quai des Orfevres", directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Clouzot, is a film to treasure because it is one of the best exponents of French film making of the postwar years. M. Clouzot, adapting the Steeman's novel, "Longtime Defence", shows his genius in the way he sets the story and in the way he interconnects all the characters in this deeply satisfying movie that, as DBDumonteil has pointed out in this forum, it demonstrates how influential Cluzot was and how much the next generation of French movie makers are indebted to the master, especially Claude Chabrol.The crisp black and white cinematography by Armand Thirard has been magnificently transferred to the Criterion DVD we recently watched. Working with Clouzot, Thirard makes the most of the dark tones and the shadows in most of the key scenes. The music by Francis Lopez, a man who created light music and operettas in France, works well in the context of the film, since the action takes place in the world of the music halls and night clubs.Louis Jouvet, who is seen as a police detective, is perfect in the part. This was one of his best screen appearances for an actor who was a pillar of the French theater. Jouvet clearly understood well the mechanics for the creation of his police inspector who is wiser and can look deeply into the souls of his suspects and ultimately steals the show from the others. In an unfair comment by someone in this page, Jouvet's inspector is compared with Peter Falk's Columbo, the television detective. Frankly, and no disrespect to Mr. Falk intended, it's like comparing a great champagne to a good house wine.Bernard Blier is perfect as the jealous husband. Blier had the kind of face that one could associate with the man consumed with the passion his wife Jenny Lamour has awakened in him. Martineau is vulnerable and doesn't act rationally; he is an easy suspect because he has done everything wrong as he finds in the middle of a crime he didn't commit, but all the evidence points to the contrary.The other great character in the film is Dora, the photographer. It's clear by the way she interacts with Jenny where her real interest lies. Simone Renant is tragically appealing as this troubled woman and makes an enormous contribution to the film. Suzy Delair, playing Jenny, is appealing as the singer who suddenly leaps from obscurity to celebrity and attracts the kind of men like Brignon, the old lecher.The film is one of the best Clouzot directed during his distinguished career and one that will live forever because the way he brought all the elements together.$LABEL$ 1
+I admit I had some trepidation when I first saw the previews for this film. Was VH-1 treading on hollow ground here? I mean, Harris and Quinn don't really look or even sound like John or Paul. But I have to admit, this film really surprised me. It's far from the exploitation film I expected. Instead, it's a character study, a low-key, whimsical, and ultimately bittersweet look at friendship, and the ultimate lesson we all learn: it's hard, if not impossible, to capture what we once had, and what has passed us by.$LABEL$ 1
+Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).$LABEL$ 0
+Brian Keith as Cole Wlikerson and Richard Jaeckel as Wade Matlock make excellent villains. They just love intimidating the locals in the most brutal way possible, and sneer sexily at any suggestion that there might be a more humane way to achieve their ends. It's a pity that goody-goody Glenn Ford gets in their way.$LABEL$ 1
+You can find an anti-war statement here without looking too hard; that layer is hackneyed. Or you can find a value neutral comment on the madness of war (stripped of "judgement"); that layer is completely uninteresting.Or you can watch this for the darn good entertainment value of Duvall's one-liners, but that's just a coating for commercial mastication.You can try to view this as a 'realistic' Vietnam war film, but ask any veteran and he'll swat down that notion -- most vets will say it stinks.Or view it as a 'will he or won't he' morality play -- nothing rich there, either.Where I found the value was in the superb self-reference. Coppola needed a container with great enough dimensions (the war) to fit the greatness of the skilled multi-dimensional actor playing 'a great man'.Brando the man was as much of a maverick as the Kurtz character. The studios were uncomfortable with his acting 'method', yet he always excelled and won accolades; the 'generals' are uncomfortable with Kurtz's 'unsound methods', in spite of his strategic genius.So Coppola makes a movie all about Brando's greatness. To hammer on the point, he places himself in the movie (as Hopper, a manic photojournalist laden with multiple cameras) to spout his praises. Brando himself is only seen in half-light and silhouettes -- brilliant cinematography by Storaro that only increases the actor's power. And he goes out like the sacrificial bull to complete the narrative equation. Oh, yes: "the horror..." Other pieces of interest: the great use of point of view camera perspectives, including 'being in the firefight' long before "Private Ryan"; the ground breaking use of sound, notably the ominous flanging sweeps and the sonic depiction of an acid trip.Don't get caught in the outer layers; the rich part you should despoil from this is the brilliant core of sound, vision and self-reference.$LABEL$ 1
+Comedy Central has a habit of putting on great programs at times-Chappelle's Show, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and then there are those that some people love or hate-Stella, Dr. Katz. Then there are some shows that have their defenders but are just plain awful- Mencia, and now, Sarah Silverman.This show is based on the fact Silverman is self-Centered, which can be funny (Colbert Report) but can be horrible (Mind of Mencia). It should shock no one that I believe the latter is the case. This show is a parody of a sitcom and society, a program so absurd it loses itself in its absurdity and it simply isn't funny. A woman farting has been done in comedy many many times because its not something that's common. We don't need 25 minutes of it. When a criminal is disarmed by a queef, it simply loses its appeal-we saw it in Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, except the women were hotter, and the whole scene was more absurd, making it better. But the best comparison of this show is to Stella, except Stella was more subtle, which is what made the absurdist comedy funny. It had better acting, and I suppose, a bit more of a fantastical realist view.Perhaps the fact some reviews are so negative (I'm very skeptical of the critical acclaim but do not dispute fan reaction) to this show is the amount of advertising on it, very obnoxious ads through many programs far outdo advertising on for other programs. Many people are wondering why Sarah Silverman has a career, and others are still bitter when better shows have been canceled. This show should've never made it past the unaired pilot stage. Back to Norm showed far more promise, yet this show makes it further. And as far as critics being correct, many things have been universally panned have seen their status rise immensely. Last I checked, Britney Spears gets good reviews too also. Take that comparison however you want because someone will no doubt accuse me of being psychotic on IMDb for not liking this show.$LABEL$ 0
+Anyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS "event". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clichés. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+This is pretty much a low-budget, made for TV, type of movie intended to capitalize off of the success of the original. I'm a fan of b-movies, and this one might have been good had they not attached the name "Cube" to it, because as is, the director and plot of the original were better, and this movie just about ruined my taste for the entire series. The characters are annoying and clichéd, there are problems with continuity, and several outright production screw-ups. The story hardly gets a chance to develop because of superfluous dialogue and suffers from that. They more or less use the same horror gimmicks over and OVER throughout the movie, and because the first one was so good, this simply turns out as a disappointment.If this was a stand-alone b-movie, I'd probably give it about a four. The "1" rating I give it was pretty much a statement about how it utterly paled in effects and intelligence as compared to the first.$LABEL$ 0
+This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...$LABEL$ 0
+Had the League been unknowns pitching this script, the backers would simply have turned around and said "no - you're not having the money - this is dreadful". As a fan of the League of Gentlemen, this is their poorest outing to date. Not particularly funny, not particularly entertaining, there are few laugh out loud moments. They do exist, but they are few and far between. I felt the format was tired and really dragging. The film refers to the writers being bored of the characters and it shows. As for being a film. I felt the Xmas special had better production value; the FX are generally pretty poor and it is clearly obvious that they didn't film in the original Royston Vasey (they filmed this on the cheap in Ireland). The musical score is weak and the dialogue is terrible. Also, the accents of the characters were largely off from their TV equivalents. Tubs and Edward, much underused (again), just didn't sound like themselves. Disappointing really, because I was hoping for something far more entertaining. This really was the League's equivalent of the 1970s comedies where the cast go to Spain...$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.$LABEL$ 0
+Ride With The Devil directed by Ang Lee(Crouching Tiger) is another gem in this fine directors cap. For those unfamiliar with the history of the Kansas-Missouri border wars during the American Civil War. See this film & you will visit a sad piece of Americana. Besides some superb action scenes (quite bloody at times). This is a story of love & devotion between men & one lady in particular. It stars Toby Maguire, Skeet Ulrich Jeffrey Wright & as the young lady Jewel, I never heard or seen her before, I want to see more of her).The acting is top notch, superb production values, very well written (adapted from a novel) This is a long film 128 minutes, but well worth seeing. my rating is **** respectively submittedJay Harris$LABEL$ 1
+What could've been a great film about the late poker pro (pre-poker craze) Stu "The Kid" Unger turned into a disappointment.You can tell the filmmakers were working on a short-string budget. Everything look filmed on the cheap. Timelines seemed a bit off to me.Casting Michael Imperoli from the Sopranos was also a bad casting choice. He looked too old to play the baby-faced Stu, he looked way too healthy for a coke addict (if you look at footage from the 1997 WSOP main event, the real Stu was so skinny and he practically had no nose from too much cocaine so he wore those sunglasses to hide them), and I kept expecting Adriana to pop up and yell "Chris-tu-phur!!!" Also they skipped over the fact that he had a son from Angie's previous relationship that committed suicide in the late '80s.Every time I saw Vincent Van Patten appear, I kept thinking he was going to announce "Show tunes going off in Stu's head." like he does on the WPT.If you're looking for real Stuey footage, check ESPN Classic because they rerun the 1997 WSOP Main Event every so often. Or try YouTube. Avoid this move like a bad beat.$LABEL$ 0
+Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood!$LABEL$ 1
+I actually had seen the last parts of this movie when I was a child. Thanks to the search feature of plots I was able to find out the name of it. For years I did not know the name, but the movie stuck in my mind. The ending left hope that the main character would get back to Earth eventually. It was a shame it did not make it to a series. This movie reminds me of Journey to The Far Side Of the Sun. Also known as Doppleganger. If you liked this feature the other one is worth a watch. It was done before The Stranger, but shares a similar plot. Yet different. I just picked up The Stranger off of eBay on VHS. Hope they make a DVD, but it is doubtful unless it comes out on Dollar DVD. A few pilots are making it on the budget DVD's and maybe this one will.$LABEL$ 1
+Woman with wig, who "dyes" her hair in the middle of the film (=takes of wig) presumably does not see what the audience can see from miles away:*** begin spoiler alert *** that her hubby is having an affair with her best girlfriend and they both try get rid of her. *** end of spoiler alert ***And what a spoiler that was: the title already gives it away, doesn't it? Bad acting, bad script: waste of time Oh yeah: in the end, she lives happily ever after....If you liked this movie, you'll really love "Cannibal women in the Avocado Jungle of Death"....$LABEL$ 0
+It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.That alone says what to expect of this movie.And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.1940s and 1950s, serve your country.1960s and 1970s, mock your country.This is the history.The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.$LABEL$ 0
+I guess every time I see one of these old movies from the 80's it puts me back at a simpler time, no matter how corny they may seem today. This movie is a good one. I remember seeing it as a small kid and thinking it was the greatest movie ever. It has all the heroistic characters that a young cowboy wants to be. Now as an adult, I can look back and laugh and still feel sad, but this time I actually know what's going on. I did find one thing weird. How many people can move to Houston and hook up with Sissy,get married,move into a trailer,have a falling out,cheat, have an uncle die,then get back together, all in the course of a month? Only in America.$LABEL$ 1
+Diane Keaton has played a few "heavy" parts in her many years on the big screen but she's mostly known for the "light and fluffy" stuff with Woody Allen, such as Annie Hall. She deserves an Oscar for best actress in a drama for this effort and it doesn't really matter what the competition was the year it was first shown. Try and find a scene in which she doesn't appear. And it was all heavy drama, exhausting in its pace and retakes, action, all at full speed. The make-up made her as young as possible and she fit the 30s age category even in close-ups, but she was playing half her age and at a very fast pace. The movie, overall was fairly well done, staged and shot well with a strong supporting cast but Keaton carried the load.$LABEL$ 1
+The success of SCREAM gave birth to a whole new horror flicks wave. I'm happy with that, as a big fan of horror, and I liked most of those new horror films. BOC is a one big pack of horror. Colorful, fast paced and original. I see this movie more like the opening of a new trilogy (much like Episode 1 and Aliens: Resurrection) since it comes up with a new twist. Instead of focusing on the little boy-killer doll relationship we have here a twisted movie about couples. We have the sweet young lovers in contrast with the killer crazy doll-sized lovers. Very inventive!$LABEL$ 1
+Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained.$LABEL$ 0
+"Shadrach" was not my favorite type of movie. I found it overly sentimental and the acting was below par. Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell were good but some of the other actors weren't at all believable. I also did not believe that Paul's parents would go away and leave him with the Dabney family, especially when they had a housekeeper living in the home. Their social classes were too far apart to consider this believable. It seemed the Dabney's lifestyle was too exaggerated. There was a scene in the beginning of the movie that showed Andie MacDowell getting out of a car after having sex with someone. Who was it? Her son? What was the scene supposed to show us? Why was the scene even included? It had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was in fact never alluded to again. It seemed gratuitous and not fitting into the story at all. There were too many inconsistencies in the movie for me. The story concerning Shadrach was nice but I wasn't convinced that the Dabneys would have been as kind and generous as they were portrayed.$LABEL$ 0
+First things first! This isn't an action movie although there is a lot of action in it! I think you can compare it to American sports movies! Where a team of very bad players succeed in the unthinkable,winning a game or tournament beyond expectation! In this case it isn't about football or baseball,but Taekwondo! In the beginning these street thugs seem to be good for nothing! But soon we will find out that they don't want to be thugs and actually achieve something in life! It is nice to see them struggle and training! I was surprised how funny this movie was! From start till the end you will laugh your pants off! The young korean actors are very convincing! Go see this wonderful feel good movie!$LABEL$ 1
+In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch. The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee! Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart$LABEL$ 1
+I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a "Dog Day Afternoon"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the "hero" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, "no way". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.$LABEL$ 0
+The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!! The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film. The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention. I gave this movie a 8/10 because some clichés.$LABEL$ 1
+Based on the true story about Christopher Boyce (Hutton) and Daulton Lee (Penn), and their involvement in selling American secret Government documents to the Soviets during the 1970s. Boyce works for the Government, and his job is to guard these particular documents, which ultimately disillusions him about his Country's affairs and practices. He then enlists his drug-dealer friend, Daulton Lee, who has become a wanted man, to be the courier for these sensitive documents. Lee infiltrates the Russian Embassy in Mexico, and makes contact with Alex (Suchet), and they both begin to play the espionage game.Lee's interest is purely about money whilst Boyce is acting out of anger towards the system he is involved in. Alex believes Lee to be the inside man in the American government. Things start to become array when Lee's drug addiction and reckless behaviour in handling the courier position offsets both Alex and Boyce. Lee becomes more paranoid, and the initial espionage game becomes more deadly and consequential for everyone involved.This is a true spy thriller without the cheesy action. The character motives and analysis of real-life subjects is sympathetic but very well written, and the film cleverly interweaves the real-life events with underlying political themes about human predatory behaviour. Where a bigger nation uses their political power to control the smaller nations. Well directed, and intense in parts, especially where the protagonists become immensely in over their heads in the spy game. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn give amazingly riveting performances in a film that questions authority and yet there is no simple answer to the political message or the complexity of that system. The plight of the protagonists becomes the underlying message within 'The Falcon and the Snowman', and makes it a clever political thriller with a poignant element about society, human relationships, and the American system. Great film!****1/2 out of *****!$LABEL$ 1
+Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice ("we are all special friends"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought this movie was highly underrated. The subject matter does seem like it would be a little strange, and I was put off at first, but once I was watching the movie, it didn't seem strange at all. I was intrigued with all the different possibilities that the story had to offer, and I couldn't wait to find out how it would end. Once it did end....I thought about it for a long time after. I was pleased with everything about K-Pax, from the acting and the story and the scientific elements and psychological issues, to the ending. It's not an especially upbeat or happy film, though it does make you chuckle from time to time, but I found it to be especially entertaining and thought-provoking. I own it now, and intend to watch it many times.$LABEL$ 1
+I found this early talkie difficult to watch and I'm a Norma Shearer fan! It's not her fault, but the primitive production values of this film would cause any viewer to become bored. 90% of the movie is filmed with "medium shots," and it's very similar to watching a dull play.$LABEL$ 0
+The good thing about this film is that it stands alone - you don't have to have seen the original. Unfortunately this is also it's biggest drawback. It would have been nice to have included a few of the original characters in the new story and seen how their lives had developed. Sinclair as in the original is excellent and provides the films best comic moments as he attempts to deal with awkward and embarrassing situations but the supporting cast is not as strong as in the original movie. Forsyth is to be congratulated on a brave attempt to move the character on and create an original sequel but the film is ultimately flawed and lacks the warmth of the original$LABEL$ 1
+Cutting to the chase: This is one of the most amazing, most intense film I've seen in a long time. The first movie in years that left me absolutely staggered. I could barely feel my way out of the theatre, I was so overwhelmed.I've been staring at the screen for about fifteen minutes trying to find some way to describe the power of this film, and just failing. Highlighting any one aspect of it -- the documentary-style video diary format, the unflinching portrayal of the events, the force of the characters -- just seems to trivialise it all. Some may find it laughable that any killer could be characterised as normal. But then not all killers are raving lunatics foaming at the mouth. Many are quite regular, unassuming people. They're just wired differently.And that's perhaps the most chilling thought of all.$LABEL$ 1
+This is definitely one of the better Mel Brooks movies, along with Spaceballs(although I will openly admit to not having watched many others, at least yet). It's very silly and thoroughly funny, there are hardly more than a few minutes throughout the entire two hour run-time, where you aren't entertained. Almost all of the gags have a great comical effect, few of them fall flat. I saw this movie right after seeing and reviewing Spy Hard, and comparing these two spoof movies, I realize exactly of how high quality this movie really is. It's funny from start to finish, none of the comedy is overdone or boring. The music is marvelous, as is the choreography of both dancing and fighting. The acting is pretty much what you would normally expect from this type of movie... Elwes is a great comedian, and makes a good Robin. The plot is typical Robin Hood, more or less everything from the legend is fit into this movie(and spoofed majorly). If you like Mel Brooks, or you're just a fan of silly humor, or you're just dying to watch a good parody of the legend of Robin Hood, this is definitely the film for you. The HBO First Look special on the film is also worth watching, and in that, you may want to keep watching throughout the credits, too. I'd recommend it to any fan of Mel Brooks movies, and to people who enjoy silly humor. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+Still a sucker for Pyun's esthetic sense, I liked this movie, though the "unfinished" ending was a let-down. As usual, Pyun develops a warped sense of humour and Kathy Long's fights are extremely impressive. Beautifully photographed, this has the feel it was done for the big screen.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a beautiful film. The true tale of bond between father and son. This is by far, Tom Hanks at his finest. Tom Hanks is really out of the box in this movie. He usually has the nice guy roles. Yet in this film,he comes off in this film as a bit gritty, but still emerges smelling like a rose, even until the very last scene, the assassination of his character. The cast of this movie was well put together. I also love the part when there is total silence when Tom Hanks' character shoots and kills all of the men in Mr. Rooney's group. There is something chilling and yet profound about no sound in that scene, just simply emotion. I love the look on John Rooney, Paul Newman's character's face when he realizes even before seeing him, that it is Tom Hanks's character getting revenge, and he knows his fate has come. The first time I saw this movie I was blown away and knew I had to go out and get the video and I since have, adding it to my collection of my all time favorite movies.Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, so this film has a special place in me.$LABEL$ 1
+turned out to be another failed attempt by the laughable sci-fi channel. i am not sure who wrote the script, and interpreted the poem, but i am sure it was by some 17 year old teen who thought it would be awesome to a have a scoped crossbow in the movie. AAAAAAAH! when i saw that part, I lost all hope. Then...they set off for heorot in a what looks to be the ship that Christopher Columbus sailed in! when they reach Heorot, (which is supposed to be a Norse mead hall) the sci-fi group of idiots decided to make heorot look like a big stone castle. when i saw that part.. i wanted to scream. i really wanted this movie to be good, but sci-fi has yet to produce a good movie, so i don't know why i got my hopes up. Oh..and Grendel and his mother, are stupid also. (this comment is off topic about "Grendel")If anyone from the sci-fi channel is reading this..here is some good advice. NOT EVERY MOVIE YOU MAKE HAS TO BE ABOUT A BIG MONSTER THAT CAN RIP PEOPLE IN HALF, THATS NOT WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS ABOUT! AND ALSO, STOP CASTING LOW-GRADE ACTORS LIKE STEPHEN BALDWIN TO BE IN YOUR FILMS! ITS NOT HELPING THE MOVIE, BUT MAKING IT WORSE!!!$LABEL$ 0
+It's quite simple that those who call this movie anything below "decent" do not know their cinema. "The Doll Master" creates a sense of dread and suspense rarely seen in movies outside of Asia.Think of a mixture of "Manga" and "Ringu" rolled into one and this is what its all about.First rate acting, first rate direction, first rate sets and effects.This is right up there with the best of Asian horror cinema; Ringu, Dark Water and A Tale of Two Sisters.An absolute must. Take it from a guy who knows his movies.$LABEL$ 1
+Interesting story and sympathetic treatment of racial discrimination, Son of the Gods is rather too long and contains some hammy acting, but on the whole remains a fascinating film.Story about a Chinese passing as White (Rchard Barthelmess) starts as Barthelmess leaves college after being insulted by a trio of brainless co-eds. He embarks on a world tour to discover himself and ends up as secretary to a British playwright (Claude King). In Monte Carlo he meets beautiful Alanna Wagner (Constance Bennett) and they fall in love. But when she discovers he is Chinese she goes berserk in a memorable scene.Plagued by guilt and love, Alanna goes into a mental spiral and makes a few attempts to contact Barthelmess. After his father dies he takes over the business (banking?) and dons Chinese garb as a symbol of his hatred of the White race that has spurned him. After a San Francisco detective tells him the truth about his birth, Barthelmess makes the decision to honor his Chinese father and mother.And I agree that one reviewer here never saw this film. Alanna declares her love for Sam BEFORE he tells her of his recent discovery. And that makes all the difference in this film.Barthelmess and Bennett each have a few scenes where they chew the scenery, but on the whole this is a solid and interesting drama. Frank Albertson is good as the nice college pal, Claude King is solid as the playwright Bathurst, Bess Flowers has one scene as an Oklahoma Indian, and E. Alyn Warren is the Chinese father, Dorothy Mathews is nasty Alice. Not so good are Anders Randolf as Bennett's father and Mildred Van Dorn as Eileen. Also note the gorgeous blonde to the right of Barthelmess at the roulette table. What a stunner whoever she was!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is my all time favorite movie! It has great acting, cute guys, and a great plot. Sean Astin is great in this movie! It has funny moments, sad moments, and happy moments. Who could ask for anything more? This movie is GREAT!$LABEL$ 1
+I found this film embarrassing to watch. I felt like it was shoving the storyline down my throat as if I couldn't pick up the subtleties I needed a voice over to spell them all out for me constantly.Having a father who IS still an alcoholic, I didn't really feel it was a film about alcoholism as such. Alcoholics, true alcoholics are very lonely people inside, in my opinion of course. They find it hard to communicate, something that the main character had no problem with really, except he DID have a problem saying I love you at one point- which was a bit of a feeble effort at establishing his cold character. He was constantly surrounded with people too!? I felt cheated that at no point were we really alone with the character to really get a sense of his inner loneliness and turmoil. I couldn't connect with the character and felt no link at all considering my father. I felt nothing at all when it had finished, just relief it was over.Kevin McKidd is an okay actor but not a tough guy feature lead! The clockwork orange thing was as subtle as a brick. McKidd was too old for the teen, they should have got three different characters or avoided the teen stage and concentrated more on the adult McKidd.On a good note, I felt the little boy actor was really good at the start of the film!!$LABEL$ 0
+this took me back to my childhood in the 1950 's so corny but just fab no one ever could play FLASH GORDON like LARRY BUSTER CRABBE, just great. i have two more series to view flash gordon's trip to mars and flash gordon conquers the universe cannot wait$LABEL$ 1
+This film suffers horrendously from its direction "Julian Grant" , and its incompetent lead, Steve Guttenberg, who's putting a solid effort to win a Bruce Willis look-alike contest! The writing is reckless Hollywood action thriller; Sean Bean --whose one of my favorites-- David Fraser, and Kim Coates give a decent performance. The film is definitely below average. 3 out of 10! I wonder what Hollywood studios thought, actually giving the go ahead, to weak director such as Grant. And I'd say to Sean Bean "what were you thinking even considering participating in a film like this, after such great films like GoldenEye, Ronin, and Patriot Games!$LABEL$ 0
+Some people don't like the animation. Personally, I think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. There are lots of older cartoons that I just love. My problems with this movie are not the animation, but basically the way it was constructed. The characters are all just... well, goofy. And for this movie, they shouldn't be. Apparently, everyone in LOTR has a limping problem (for starters.) Just the way they acted in general annoyed me. My two sisters and I were laughing through most of this movie. I think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones, they wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I rented this and didn't buy it. There are few movies that give me a headache. This was one of them. However, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, although it ranks up there. Or down there, depending on your view.$LABEL$ 0
+"Winchester '73" marked the first of a series of westerns involving James Stewart and director Anthony Mann. As in most of them Stewart's hero has an violent edge that threatens to explode at any time. The title refers to a "one in a thousand" rifle that is up for competition at a rifle shoot held in Dodge City on July 4, 1876. Into town comes Lin McAdam (Stewart) and his sidekick High Spade (Millard Mitchell) who are on the trail of Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) for a past dastardly deed. They arrive just in time to see Marshal Wyatt Earp (Will Geer) running saloon girl Lola (Shelley Winters) out of town. It turns out that Dutch Henry is also in town for the rifle shoot. Lin and Dutch Henry shoot it out for the coveted prize with Lin winning but Dutch Henry robs Lin of the gun and escapes. Lin and High Spade trail Dutch Henry across country where they encounter Lola with her cowardly beau Steve Miller (Charles Drake) hold up in a U.S. Cavalry camp awaiting attack by the Indians led by Young Bull (Rock Hudson) who has acquired the prized rifle by murdering wily gun runner John McIntyre. He had got the weapon by cheating Dutch Henry at poker. Young Bull is killed during the attack and the gun passes to Steve. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Lola and Steve meet up with notorious gunman Waco Johnny Dean (Dan Duryea) who kills Steve and takes the valued rifle and Lola for himself. When Dean meets up with Dutch Henry, he allows him to take back "his gun" planning to murder him later. In the town of Tuscosa, Lin kills Dean as Dutch Henry's plans of holding up the bank go bad and he escapes into the hills with Lin in pursuit. In one of the best final shoot outs ever, the two meet in the final showdown. I believe that this movie was the only one of the Stewart/Mann collaborations that was shot in B&W. It is beautifully photographed, especially the scenes in the "wide open spaces" and in particular, the final showdown. Stewart playing against type, plays the hero with a violent revenge motive edge, an emotion that he would carry into future films with Mann. As in most Universal westerns, this one boasts a cast of seasoned veterans and contract players of the day. In addition to those mentioned above, J.C. Flippen appears as the cavalry sergeant, Steve Brodie, James Millican, John Doucette and Chuck Roberson as various henchmen, Ray Teal as the sheriff pursuing Duryea, Tony Curtis and James Best as rookie soldiers and Edmund Cobb, Chief Yowlachie and John War Eagle in various roles in the Dodge City sequence. A classic western in every sense of the word. It was responsible for re-generating Stewart's career as an action star.$LABEL$ 1
+This is basically a goofball comedy, with somewhat odd pacing due to some dramatic elements. For Michael J. Fox and Paul Reubens, it was their first film(Fox had previously been in a short lived TV series and a TV movie).Since the movie is basically a race/scavenger hunt type movie, like "Cannonball Run", "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World", or more recently "Rat Race", there are no main characters. Instead there are groups of characters, splitting the screen time and allowing for tons of mini-plots. Usually these kind of movies are a way to cram the maximum amount of stars (or semi-stars) onto a film.This one has teams, with one being the primary team which Fox belongs to, who are the only characters to be developed. Their plot is more of a stereotypical Disney affiar, about a college boy not paying attention to his younger brother, who he thinks of as a lazy punk. Since they are forced on a team together, along with the older brother's girlfriend, they are forced to work together. Since this is the main plot it gets the most screen time.Some of the other silly plots stand out. The Blue Team is about an overweight rich kid whose dad just wants him and his misfit friends out of the house. They end up with a cool custom van which had an on-board computer (in 1980!) to instantly solve the riddles, plus play video games with the time saved! One member, Stephen Furst, went on to play Dr. Axelrod on "St. Elsewhere", and later was on "Babylon 5". I'll also admit that I still laugh when Barf, while trying to unscramble a word a'la Scrabble, comes up with, "Fagabefe?" This is much funnier than Bart Simpson's "Qwyjibo", in my opinion.The other three teams have plots that are somewhat linked together. The green team is a bunch of frat boys, with mostly beer jokes which climaxes into a breakdown for one when the hunt leads to the Pabst Blue Ribbon Brewery. They get a chance to harass the red team, with two feminists and two fun-loving twins. The white team of nerds are lead by Eddie Deezen, who was previously in "Grease" but went on to play a critical computer geek role in "Wargames" and later Tim Conway's sidekick in some of the "Dorf" series.If you grew up in the 80's, then there are some classic moments in the movie that bring back memories. The early video arcade, from back when they were cool is always a plus in my mind. Look for Paul Reubens and his quarter-shooting guns. There is also a miniature golf course and a roller disco.The movie is actually an okay family movie simply because profanity is almost non-existant, and the small amount of sexual humor is completely innocent. The odd pacing thanks to the yellow team's cheesy dramatic moments will put parents to sleep while their kids can giggle at giant melons at Fat Burger (oh, they actually have a special melon platter? That must be it, right?)$LABEL$ 1
+If you're a fan of Turkish and Middle Eastern music, you're in great luck. This film is a documentary of current music in Istanbul, spanning the traditional to the modern. It's very good. You could not do better if you went to Istanbul yourself. We get interviews with Orhan Gencebay, concert clips of modern musical icons, a road show with a Romani (Gypsy) audience, Turkish Hip Hop (surprisingly very very good), and much much more. Some of the best female vocalists I've ever heard. A Kurdish woman singing in a hamam (steam bath) who will rip your heart out. Lots of social and political background. If this is your thing, you'll have a grand time. I could barely sit still in the theatre.CD soundtrack now available on amazon. Pricey.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know what it is about this movie, the charisma of the two leads, their chemistry on screen, the chance to see Matthau's real-life son (you can't miss him)or Art Carney's performance but I love it. I've seen it a few times and never tire of watching it again. Rent and enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+The best way to have fun in this movie is to count how many clichés it is rehashing. Snarling Chinese gangsters. A female vice-president. A ventilator duct that happens to be big enough to fit a big Caucasian male. Shooting through the wall to kill the bad guy. A Situation where you need to snuff out some innocent people to prevent Armageddon. Independence Day scenes where you snuff out some memorable landmarks in a fireball. The vice president in a nice well lighted room surrounded by subordinates, while the Chinese premier virtually alone in a dark room with just bit of dim light shining, snarling as viciously as the slimy gangsters. A lone hero left alone in a ship (building, airplane, whatever) wreaking havoc on clueless bad guys with big automatic weapons. Etc., etc., etc.The second best way is to count how many zeroes you need to put after the decimal to accurately gauge the probability of the film scenario. I counted up to 45. A president agreeing to a meeting on board a private vessel. The impossibly non-overridable command from the nuke box. The part where the Chinese decided to play shoot 'em up. Etc., etc. Man the earth is more likely fall into the sun than for this film to happen. I admit the film was interesting until the point the evil Taiwanese gangsters kidnapped the President. Then the boredom kicked in. Suspension of disbelief ceased, and I started thinking the fun I'd have torturing this film...$LABEL$ 0
+I went to see "Quitting" with high hopes, because the director's "Shower" had impressed me so. Despite a few lapses into mawkishness, "Shower" ranks high on my list of all-time favorite movies for its penetrating insight into family relationships and its generally superb acting and direction. And I've seen it at least three times now.But "Quitting" fell flat, in my estimation. It seemed a pointless exercise and I was quickly so tired of the main character's insufferable personality that I was longing for the movie to end. I admit to falling asleep six or seven times, but it was only for a few seconds at a time, so I think it's still OK to write this comment.I did admire the parents and sister. The device of using all real characters in the film is a nice one I've never seen used before.Disappointment aside, I will still make an effort to see any film bearing Yang Zhang's name, simply on the basis of the beautiful "Shower."$LABEL$ 0
+This isn't the comedic Robin Williams, nor is it the quirky/insane Robin Williams of recent thriller fame. This is a hybrid of the classic drama without over-dramatization, mixed with Robin's new love of the thriller. But this isn't a thriller, per se. This is more a mystery/suspense vehicle through which Williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper.Also starring Sandra Oh and Rory Culkin, this Suspense Drama plays pretty much like a news report, until William's character gets close to achieving his goal.I must say that I was highly entertained, though this movie fails to teach, guide, inspect, or amuse. It felt more like I was watching a guy (Williams), as he was actually performing the actions, from a third person perspective. In other words, it felt real, and I was able to subscribe to the premise of the story.All in all, it's worth a watch, though it's definitely not Friday/Saturday night fare.It rates a 7.7/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of THE century's best tv-series ever with all the great suspense,story,and a cast of absolutely fantastic actors and love and grief that really gets you involved and captivated in front of your tv. If you have seen it once, you will go back to see it again. I have several times and still do it. The 20 th century's best drama.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.$LABEL$ 0
+The film is very complete in what it is, keeping one continuously interested with the flashbacks to childhood and growing up with such a bizarre father, and interspersing it with the tails of serial murder, one simply cannot go wrong. The very plot in itself, the very story and essence of the film, is entertaining. It is the sort of story that the director (Bill Paxton) could do so much with, and in this case, he really did do a lot with it.From beginning to end you are kept anticipating more and more about what is happening and where the film is going, and the creativity that is behind this story is first class. I felt as if this film was exquisitely done from start to finish, and one of those rare gems that seemed to be without any boring lulls -- the action flowing neatly, quickly, and tightly from one scene to the next. It demonstrates just how far people can go: so as to do such horrible things to their loved ones, and to do such acts of evil, in the name of 'God' when they are disillusioned as in this case. It also is sometimes interesting in its' twists & takes on the concept of morality as a whole.Overall, this is the sort of film that one easily overlooks, but I would recommend you to not do likewise and to check this film out -- it is very much so worth your time.$LABEL$ 1
+I agree with "johnlewis", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is fascinating.Examples : Pierre is going to marry his cousin, even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ? Pierre and his stepmother have a rather...curious relationship.Pierre, Lucie, and Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the triangle are not quite certain...Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch, or is he ? And Isabelle, who is she really ?? Overall, I think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read Melville.$LABEL$ 1
+Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.$LABEL$ 0
+Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought that this film was very enjoyable. I watched this film with my wife BEFORE I had my first child. Therefore, I was not watching it as simply family entertainment and I still thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems as though many of the reviews are pointing out that this movie is not earth shattering, there were no unexpected plot changes and that the movie was predictable and boring. If these people were watching this movie expecting to have a religious experience doing so, then they were obviously going to be disappointed. This is simply an animated movie; nothing more. If you want to see this movie simply to sit back and let yourself be entertained, you will not be disappointed. In closing, this is definitely not the best movie Disney has made, but it IS entertaining and I do not understand the bad reputation it has received.$LABEL$ 1
+Now before people start having a breakdown about this movie (those who play rugby anyway) this is a film! It's been given the Hollywood treatment to entertain people and therefore those who play rugby (myself included) are naturally gonna pick holes in the choreography of the game in the film. Althogether it is a decent film and bring to the attention the morals and ideas behind the game of rugby.The film is based on a real team, a real coach and his work helping guide kids in the right direction to be better people in the future, and also is based on real people who have played for the highland team. Its just a typical sports movie with a character who is misguided and eventually finds his way on the right track again through the rugby medium in this case. Is generally a feel good movie that is enjoyable but has flaws in terms of it's portrayal of the game. however, like i said it is a film under the Hollywood treatment.$LABEL$ 1
+Your mind will not be satisfied by this no—budget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybrid—not only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a well—known character actor.This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of convent—exploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride!$LABEL$ 0
+Engaging entry from Europe about Czech fighter pilots flying for the RAF during WW2. It's always interesting as an American to see a new point of view on familiar events in history. There's nothing terribly original or revolutionary about the style in which this is filmed or the romantic love triangle that anchors the narrative. Still, it is compelling all the way through. There is a good balance between drama, romance, humor, action, and symbolism that is understated beautifully by the director and cast. This is a breath of fresh air after sitting through overblown and boring Hollywood epics like "Pearl Harbor." A solid production all around. This is definitely worth your time if you are a fan of foreign cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+To be honest fellow IMDb reviewers, I enjoyed this show a lot. The reason? Well, it didn't try to be more than it is; I mean, a sitcom with regular expectations, with a well known and repeated plot, funny and talented actors, and clever jokes oriented for a post college audience.This is what Grown Ups is all about: trying to be mature but in a funny way.Jaleel White is funny as always and delivers some witty, and hilarious sex oriented jokes. The humor is very 90's without taking in account the tendencies of the new millennium and that's the main reason in my opinion why the show didn't have success. It got stuck in the 90's.Oh and Mrs. Ribisi was really funny and perky.My favorite show has to be the one that deals with Karma biting the ass! Not a cult classic but I'm sure it's part of regular early 2000's nostalgia.$LABEL$ 1
+I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the "über-vamp" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed more like a caricature or cliché than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all, just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover! Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms.The film in a word is "charming". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the performance of Murvyn Vye as "Zoltan". He was very magnetic in the short time he was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice.Finally, a sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film is a tad far-fetched.$LABEL$ 1
+The Late Shift is a great book, I read the book several years ago, and I was transfixed at the cutthroat debauchery that went on when Johnny Carson retired and Jay Leno and Johnny Carson tried to grab his spot. When the movie came out, I snagged a VHS copy of the movie, and having reread the book recently, it's hard to say which I enjoy more, because they're quite equal in the amount of information conveyed. The two lead actors, John Michael Higgins, and Daniel Roebuck, two actors I never heard of before, and haven't heard of since, play Leno and Letterman convincingly, despite Letterman's dismissal of his portrayal as being poor. They play the parts quite well, despite a lot of people looking for an imitation of the two. I wasn't as interested in that. The story is what counts. And that brings me to Kathy Bates. Kathy Bates, playing Helen Kushnick, IS this movie. She plays this evil bitch of a character so menacingly you realize how on earth can this woman control herself, much less a national TV show. Yikes! There should be a sequel!!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand. The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.$LABEL$ 0
+After an undercover mission in Bucharest to disclose an international gang of weapon dealers, the agent Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) is assigned to protect the Romanian Nadia Kaminski (Silvia Colloca), the widow of an accountant of the Romanian Mafia. However, the CIA safe house is broken in by the criminals, and Sonni realizes that the information was leaked from inside the Agency. Alone, trusting only in his friend Michael Shepard (William Hope), Sonni fights to survive and protect Nadia.The career of Wesley Snipes is downhill. I have just seen this flick, and it is another disappointing movie of this actor, whose career is presently very similar to Steven Segal's one. The movie has many explosions, shots and car chase associated to an awful story and horrible acting. First, the Afro-American Wesley Snipes is chased by the police of Bucharest, but they never find a black American man. I have never been in Romania, but I believe there are not many Afro-Americans in this country. His character does not like to bath, wearing the same clothes along many days. There is no chemistry between Sonni and the sexy Silvia Colloca, but she freely has sex, falls in love for him and shares her fortune with him. The boy that performs Nadia's son is horrible. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "O Detonador" ("The Detonator")$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, so when a friend of mine told me he was supposed to direct MM2 and MM3, I thought, heck, I got to check out Monster Man and see what its like, maybe I can get a part in it, but when I popped it into my DVD player and and tried to choke down the first 45 minutes of nothing but bad, bad I mean horribly annoying bad comedy from that fat ass thinking he's funny, not to mention how looooong the director spent on the pointless desert road trip, I cam to the conclusion that these guys didn't have a clue of what they were doing and missed the boat by a long shot. The story had potential to be somewhat different than the usual BS you see on the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video shelf put out by Lions gate these days, but they surely messed this one up. Why put so much time and effort in shooting annoying bad acting and bad jokes, why not shorten the road trip and put more of the plot in the movie. Myabe the writing was so bad that they had to cut out a lot of the movie or maybe the director didn't shoot enough of the horror and gore, that they had to find filler to make the usual 84 minutes???? All in all, and I'm being easy here, maybe because a friend of mine is the bald redneck in the bar scene that gets his skull crushed when chasing the three leads out into the street, I will give it at least 1 star for trying, and the gore/kill scenes weren't that bad, again, they tried. Too bad, Lions Gate could have created a cool franchise from this idea, but failed. I don't recommend paying to rent it, maybe you can find a cut down version where the movie starts from the hitch hiker scene. CRAP!$LABEL$ 0
+First, a little summary. This reporter named Torch is basically trying to get out the story of a zombie outbreak and finds the military & government censoring him. Nice message, government censorship and all that, but the way they DID the movie was, well let me explain.This movie is beyond description. The idea that somebody holds it in higher regard than anything by George Romero is justification enough for the reviewer to be committed to a mental institution. The script is atrocious on its own, like it was written by a sixth grader.As for special effects, I understand that independent films have low budgets, and some gore effects looked acceptable, but if you want a scene with fire, here's a tip: buy some nonflammable material, have an extinguisher ready, and get a fire going! Don't digitally add it in and make it look like an explosion from a Nintendo 64 game. The acting, well let's put it this way. In my summer theater program, a cold reading of the script is, compared to this, The Godfather. I won't even go into the inconsistencies. Find them yourself.What disturbed me the most, though, was when everything was finished after shooting and editing, somebody might have said, "Okay, this looks good. Let's release it." It sends a chill down my spine to even think about it, to think somebody felt that this was good enough for DVD release. This isn't DVD quality. This isn't Sci-Fi channel quality. Hell, this isn't even film school quality. If you were to submit this in for a project at a film school, you would get an F. No, not even an F, more like an F-. I wouldn't be surprised if he would try to get you expelled.I felt used after I saw this thing. Blockbuster and the makers of this movie have my money right now, and I'd prefer not to think of what they're doing with it. I have been the pawn of some elaborate, nefarious scheme at legalized theft, and it doesn't feel good to think that I walked right into it, looking at the back cover with pleasant memories of 28 Days Later only to find a film Ed Wood would watch and say afterwards, "I didn't much care for this." This film is the single most terrible movie I have seen. I have not seen anything by Ed Wood, but I have confidence this is worse. If you are looking for serious cinema, so much as being within ten feet of it will probably give you a bad headache. If not, I still recommend that you personally write the director and ask how he sleeps at night. However, if you are the kind of person who get a laugh out of really bad stuff then I recommend you check this out. You won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.$LABEL$ 0
+Having seen the movie years ago and been disappointed by its squandered potential, when I heard that it was becoming a TV series, I flatly refused to watch it. My best friend became a rabid fan immediately, and knowing my love for horror movies, could not believe that I wouldn't watch a single episode. I told him that the movie had scarred me for life as far as anything BUFFY was concerned, and he told me to forget that the movie even existed. He insisted that I give two episodes a shot: "Once More With Feeling" and this one.Both of them are why I am a BUFFY fan today. He was right - I was hooked immediately. I have never seen a show with the guts to dare try an episode that has next to no dialogue, and nothing else could've pulled it off with the panache and the pure creativity of BUFFY. I think X FILES might've gotten away with it if they'd thought of it first, but I'm glad that BUFFY did it instead. It is a credit to everyone involved that you are riveted for the entire hour, sometimes hanging onto the edge of your seat. And when it was all over, I craved to know more about every character. So I went out and bought the Season One boxed set. And the rest is history...I guarantee you that if you've never seen it, either, you'll want to see more if you make this episode your first. The only reason I'm not giving it 10 out of 10 is because I'm reserving that score for "Once More..."$LABEL$ 1
+This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.$LABEL$ 0
+Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his "Laura" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - "You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be "Sandy Dixon's kid" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since "Laura" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in "The Iron Curtain" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad ("Your father liked me," he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast.$LABEL$ 1
+I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven".$LABEL$ 1
+I thought this movie was good, I loved the plot, I loved the shoot out scenes, except for a few, they were not needed and i also enjoyed Ma's character, she was a rider I liked that. I do have to say that in this gangster movie the actors were picked well because sometimes some actors just don't fit the role. However though i hate to say it, but I hated the ending, I felt as if it should have went in a different direction. Also it would have been better with a little more details, its based on a true story but there was so much of the facts left out but other than that it was good. If you enjoy movies on the past gangsters you'll enjoy this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best episodes of Doctor Who EVER. We have the Cybermen, The Cyber conversion units (May scare young children) and of coarse the Doctor doing one of his best acts. Bravo David Tennant. Good scenes as if it was a movie, with thrilling scenes in some streets, an invasion on the Cyberman's base, and leaving the world different to ours, basically a 45 minute movie.Being Part 2 of Rise of the Cybermen, this would never disappoint. With it having a great build up to the final.The Doctor plus an evil enemy (Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Sontarans, Davros, Autons, or even Macra) is a battle to the death, just be careful with young children watching this.$LABEL$ 1
+No Strings Attached is one of Carlos Mencia's best performances to date. Mencia is known for poking and making fun of racial issues. However, he does more than that in this stand-up performance, which took place in San Francisco. In general, Mencia's material does not only make you laugh but it also makes you think about what is really wrong with society today.In this hour long performance, Mencia talks about such things as illegal immigration, what women really mean when they ask for equality in the workplace, terrorism, his opinion of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and an argument that he got into with a woman regarding whether or not he is affected by Jesus, and how society should treat those that are physically or mentally handicapped. Mencia even discusses whether or one should have the right to speak out and tell a joke.Carlos Mencia is not afraid to offend, which at many times gets him trouble with his critics. For example, he does go somewhat far (and he admits it) with a joke regarding Pope John Paul II and what he is most likely doing in heaven right now. Mencia's main message in all of his performances is that we all have have a voice and that we should use that voice to speak what we feel and not be afraid to offend. He reminds us that we have a right to free speech and that we must use this right as Americans.If you enjoy this performance, I definitely recommend watching Mind of Mencia, his show on Comedy Central.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's face it, lot's of bad movies are made all the time. For those people who work in film, you have probably poured a lot of time and effort into many of these plot less wonders. Sometimes, and this is my opinion, it is the act of merely making the movie that is important to us. To tell a story, (no matter how simple and unrealistic). Also, the collaborative process is one key characteristic that is unique to film and theater. To put on a production of any caliber, requires the talents of a varying amount of people, depending on its scale, to bring its story to life. The most intriguing part of American Movie, however, is not the movie being filmed. It is the movie maker himself, as a character of his own life, which demands our attention. None of them serve as models of the filmmakers we know and have worked with. But, I will argue, they are archetypes of small parts of us which try to be a part of this cult activity of independent film-making. (Alright a very small part of us) These are the people who live under the rocks of their own lives and just so happen to be snared by the romance of cinema. This leads me to my next argument. American Movie captures the raw spirit of independent film-making. Bad stories told on (nowadays) digital film with sloppy effects and horrible performances- because this IS the best they can do with a budget of a couple thousand dollars rather than a studio budget of several million dollars a day. That is the difference between low low LOW end productions and studio productions. The independent filmmaker just wants to create a linear or even a nonlinear story to shoot as well as he can with the money he's investing in himself and the resources around him in order to see a finished product on his rundown TV. Rugged Individualism materializes in every art form. I find this film to be a brilliant document of truth for many filmmakers. And no, I'm not full of myself. Man, these people are hilarious. Their problems seem hilarious, their characteristics are hilarious. Best line of the movie: "It's alright!. . . It's okay!. . . There's something to live for!. . . Jesus told me so!!!" Said a million times by a funny old man. Hat's off to Tom Beach. Chicago Rules.$LABEL$ 1
+the movie is complete disaster. i don't know who write scripts for movies like this one, but i would definitely love to meet one of them and talk to him a little bit. perhaps script writers really don't know sh*t about situation in foreign countries in present or recent past? or they just don't give a damn and write everything that they think it's interesting.a great and everlasting formula with mad dictator + 1 lonely hero (an American of course) might seem like a good idea, but come on?! we had such a tyrant in serbia (milosevic) who did a lot of bad things to it's people, but i simply can't imagine him yelling "shoot them, shoot them" with such a barbaric passion, like in medieval times. maybe they wanted to show how evil he was, but it was a stupid idea. much better impression would be if he just did it in cold blood, like the real monsters do.the list of nonsense is too long, but the funniest thing is: no matter how many national TV stations there are in Russia, Russian president watch American SNN (CNN) news?? OMFG!give me a break!burn this piece of rubish please!AWFUL!$LABEL$ 0
+I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that "thou shalt not steal" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Las Vegas is very funny and focuses on the substance.....The sets are amazing and the scenes outside are breathtaking; the characters are all very fun and cool.The women are a plus....Holly Sims is lovable as the daughter of James Caan who heads the security of the casino. While Josh Duhamel is very funny and lets face it, he looks like he can take down anyone.Vanessa Marcil and Nikki Cox add that special touch.The story lines are very fun and weird at times.You can easily just relax into this show and doesn't bring the heavy story lines like the other shows that rule the ratings...$LABEL$ 1
+"Black Vengeance" is an alternate title for "Ying hung ho hon" AKA "Tragic Hero" (1987). I have just seen this on VHS, together with the first part of the story, "Gong woo ching" ("Rich and Famous"), also 1987. (The poster and 2 stills featured on the page are for a 4-DVD set of movies starring Rod Perry (The Black Gestapo), Fred Williamson (Black Cobra 2), Richard Lawson (Black Fist). The fourth movie is called "The Black Six"). Strangely, while the characters retain their original names in "Rich and Famous", in "Black Vengeance" Chow Yun-Fat's character is named Eddie Shaw, Alex Man (Man Tze Leung) is Harry, and Andy Lau is called Johnny. Also confusing is the fact that 1994 is given as the copyright dates on both films. Perhaps that was the year they were American-dubbed. According to the release dates given on IMDb "Tragic Hero" was released before "Rich and Famous". Was there any reason for releasing the sequel first? Despite some users' comments, I enjoyed these films, although they aren't among CYF's best such as "The Killer" and "Hard-Boiled" which are truly astonishing. However,if one day I come across a 2-DVD set of "Rich and Famous" and "Tragic Hero" I won't hesitate to buy it. Hopefully, these comments about "Black Vengeance" clear up, which was also for me, a mystery as to where it belonged in Chow Yun-Fat's filmography.$LABEL$ 0
+Abysmal Indonesian action film from legendary Arizal triumphantly sculpts a template for future Cinemax pap like 'China O'Brien' and 'Do or Die' with Erik Estrada while simultaneously burying poor rising action star Pat O'Brien with a hackneyed backyard script and three cans of hair-styling gel to perm his impressive 1984 mullet. This guy's physical prowess resembles a more femme Mark Gregory and his next credit would be second fiddle to Chris Mitchum as "Tom Selick." Powerful. At least the action is mindless and non-stop with some daring Asian stuntmen risking their lives for what is essentially a poorly constructed movie by teens and/or meth addicts with no concept of reality. One poor extra gets gorno-ly shredded by an electric hedge clipper and many more are killed by getting hit in the head by odd objects such as a motorcycle wheel or cardboard box. Classic rape scenes are tasteless and priceless and quotable dialog such as, "I would rather trust a rattlesnake!" are delivered with such exuberance and fervor from the third-rate polizioteschi voice actors. Random highlight: some crazy dude eating live lizards. Movie also holds the record for most cars driven through walls. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+I throughly enjoyed this short, even as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. Director Sheldon Cohen and Narrator Roch Carrier captured all of the boy's emotions perfectly. From the feelings he had for his hero, Maurice "Rocket" Richard, to the excitement, anticipation and hope of getting a new Montreal Canadiens sweater soon, to the look of horror on his face when he got his sweater from his mother; A Toronto Maple Leafs sweater was priceless and the shame of having to wear this dreadful (in his eyes) blue and white Toronto Maple Leafs sweater; Not the rouge, bleu and blanc of the Montreal Canadiens with Richard's number nine, like his old sweater. And worst of all, his Mum made him wear this Maple Leafs sweater out of the house. You could envision and anticipate the ridicule he would get from his friends when he hit the ice wearing that sweater before he got there.I was laughing the whole time and this is one of the best animated shorts I've seen.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C. Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a weak element in this film.$LABEL$ 1
+While the original First Blood had its far-fetched moments, it was at least exciting in parts. In Rambo: First Blood, Part II the emphasis is shifted very much onto comic-book action. Plausibility is totally rejected; logic nose-dives; Stallone becomes so impregnable that there can be no doubt he will succeed in his mission. Just like any other wish-fulfilment actioner of that time (e.g. Invasion USA, Commando, Red Scorpion), Rambo: First Blood, Part II cancels out its own opportunities for real excitement by presenting a hero too invulnerable to fear for. If you can tell from the word go that Rambo is going to wipe out hundreds of enemy soldiers, what is left to get excited about?Imprisoned after the events of the first movie, John J Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is offered a pardon if he will join a covert operation in the Far East. The year is 1985, and a mission is being arranged to find out if there are any American PoWs still trapped in the jungles of Vietnam. Rambo is encouraged to take the job by his old mentor Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna), but the assignment is actually the brainchild of a government outfit fronted by Marshall Murdock (Charles Napier). Rambo's job is merely to head for a prison camp in the jungle and check out if it contains any American PoWs – if it doesn't, he is to rendezvous with a chopper; if it does, he is to get photographic evidence of their existence so that they can be rescued at a later date. Aiding him in his quest is a lady soldier with local knowledge, the beautiful and resourceful Co Bao (Julia Nickson). Sure enough, Rambo discovers that there are PoWs in the camp, but he exceeds his orders by rescuing one of them… when he reaches the rendezvous point, the rescue chopper abandons him on the orders of Murdock who, it seems, doesn't really want to find any PoWs because of the political and military implications. Rambo is captured by the enemy and tortured, but following an explosive escape he sets out to free the PoWs and get his revenge on the treacherous Murdock.The few good points of the film come from Jack Cardiff's polished photography, Jerry Goldsmith's exhilarating score, and the sheer professionalism of the stunt team in performing various action antics. Beyond these scant pickings, the film is a failure. The actors are reduced to macho posturing, the plot rings false, the action sequences are soulless and suspenseless, the dialogue is absurd… even the violence becomes numbingly predictable. At the time of its release America was under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, a man with simplistic and near-hysterical anti-communist sentiments. For this reason, contemporary audiences lapped up this Commie-bashing shooting-fest as if it was the greatest movie of all-time, transforming it into an undeserved box office success. Thankfully times have changed – nowadays we can look upon it as a simple-minded action flick with a ludicrously high body count, ludicrously dumb politics, and a ludicrous hero.$LABEL$ 0
+In Cold Mountain, North Colorado, near to the period of the American Civil War, the Reverend Monroe (Donald Sutherland) arrives in the small town with his daughter, the shy Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), due to health reasons. Ada meets the also shy Inman (Jude Law), and they fall in love with each other. With the beginning of the war, Inman becomes a soldier, and his great support to stay alive is the wish to see Ada in Cold Mountain again. Meanwhile, Ada meets Ruby Thewes (Renée Zellweger), a survivor of the war, who helps her in the farm and becomes her best friend. The story alternates present and past situations, disclosing a beautiful romance. I liked this film a lot. Having names such as Philip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Portman and Giovanni Ribisi in the supporting cast, a magnificent direction of Anthony Minghella and seven indications to the Oscar, this movie does not disappoint. My remark is that there are some very important scenes deleted in the story and presented in the DVD. At least one of them, which show what happens with Sara, her baby and the three dead bodies in her farm, should not be deleted as it was. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): 'Cold Mountain'$LABEL$ 1
+I just came back from a pre-release viewing of this excellent sci-fi film noire. It's style is definitively unique and very well made. It is filmed with actual actors, but transformed into a black and white comic-strip style you have never seen before. It goes one step further than Sin City, and it does it well. It's a successful combination of french comic and movie cultures. The story and mood remind of Blade Runner, and if you liked that one you will surely like this one, too. The storyline is intelligent, never boring and has some nice little twists. This film is a must-see for any cinephile except perhaps those who absolutely don't like sci-fi or b&w.$LABEL$ 1
+A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.$LABEL$ 1
+My guide for the quality of the a movie is if I'm still thinking about it after leaving the theater. I'm still thinking about this one the next day, which doesn't happen often.The scenery (a reasonable guess for 16th century Italy), costumes, lighting, cinematography are all excellent. It is a beautiful film visually.Characters can never rise above the script they must recite, but these actors made the most of their material, which is excellent. This is one of Shakespeare's best plays, which people will still enjoy another 400 years down the road. All of the principals were interesting and enjoyable.Those who say this is anti-semitic must be deaf and blind. If anything, it is anti-Venitian-16th-century-Catholic. While Shylock plays a man controlled and tortured by the hurts he has suffered, it is clear that the society in which he lives is largely to blame. The script clearly places his personal responsibility where it belongs, as well.A great film.$LABEL$ 1
+There are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to "Sweet Marijuana" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.A must stroll down Memory Lane.$LABEL$ 1
+I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.$LABEL$ 0
+Unfortunately for myself - I stumbled onto this show late in it's lifetime. I only caught a few episodes (about three) before it was cancelled by ABC. I loved the characters, and storyline - but most of all the GREAT actors! I was a fan of Sex and the City, so I saw two characters I recognized (Bridget Moynahan was & The Character "Todd" was "Smith Jared"), as well as Jay Hernandez (From Carlito's Way: Rise To Power) and Erika Christensen (Swimfan). I enjoy watching young actors get their due, and felt like this show would propel their career further along. I hope this at least gets put back out on DVD, and maybe WB will pick it up for a second season sometime? In the meantime, I'm viewing it on ABC's website from the beginning.$LABEL$ 1
+i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects.every aspect has a comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response, but otherwise this program is good.i strongly recommend this program, and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish it properly$LABEL$ 1
+To begin with, I really love Lucy. Her TV show still makes me laugh. She was one of the greatest comedians who ever lived, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. But, her performance in this movie is disappointing. She was too old, and the gauze filters on the lens make her look like a London fog refugee. She couldn't sing, and her voice was so froggy that she croaked through every song. Her dancing days were long in the past. Just because you are a Lucy fan, don't gloss over this mistaken, sad performance and sing it's praises. I prefer to remember Lucy in her wonderful TV series(I Love Lucy) and to draw the curtain of charity over the terrible mess of a movie called "Mame".$LABEL$ 0
+As a lover of the surreal (in art and film) I was pleased to discover this film on IFC. It is definitely a keeper. Most of the other reviews tell the general plot (not all correct) so I won't bother to bore anyone with that. The main thing is the alternate worlds concept which is brought on by Ana's impending illness, and the way she manages to link with someone else after being so "alone", and finally with her family, which I believe is still at least a little troubled. It only can be called a horror movie in that it has frightening scenes but is a fantasy (with a little hint of "coming of age" only because Ana is a pre-teen who "hates boys"). I heartily recommend it to those who appreciate the stretch of their imagination.$LABEL$ 1
+This small John Ford western with no 'stars' but a cast of character actors is one of his masterpieces. It has a documentary-like feel to it as it traces the journey West of a party of Mormons and it may be the most authentic looking of all Ford's films, (it's on par with "The Sun Shines Bright" which he made a couple of years later).There is a plot of sorts, (a group of bank robbers join the wagon train at one point), but the film's dramatic highlights are almost incidental. The splendid performances of Ford's stock company, (Ben Johnson, Harry Carey Jr, Ward Bond, Jane Darwell etc), adds considerably to the film's authenticity while the nearest the film gets to a full-bodied star performance is Joanne Dru's Denver. Dru was a much finer actress than she was ever given credit for as were Bond and Johnson, who at least was finally awarded with the recognition of an Oscar for his work in "The Last Picture Show". As he said himself, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Add Bert Glennon's superb location photography and you have a genuine piece of Americana that couldn't have some from anyone other than Ford. This is a film that truly honors America's pioneers and is full of sentiment and feeling.$LABEL$ 1
+This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.$LABEL$ 1
+I wondered why I didn't like Peggy Sue Got Married more than I did, when it first came out in 1986, with all the hype. Somehow I found Nic Cage's character off-putting. Way off-putting. Then the plot didn't seem to make sense. Then by the end of the credits, the question came to mind: What point was this movie making? What was it saying? The answer, unfortunately, was not much, if anything. I really don't think this movie aimed at making a statement; unless it was "your life is your life, you're gonna make the same mistakes no matter what, so keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not the hole". Not a very profound statement, and I'm sorry, not profoundly made in this movie. The writing simply isn't that good. The direction is uneven, and is strangely overblown at times. Kathleen Turner was the best, and in my opinion, only worthwhile thing in this movie, and performed something of a miracle creating a whole character despite bizarre, unexplained circumstances, with a script that had no apparent statement to make. She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes. The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense. Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.$LABEL$ 0
+I used to love the Muppets. The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan were good family movies, cleverly written and fun to watch. I never thought I would see the day when they would jump on the Hollywood sleaze bandwagon, but here it is: Scooter as a caged rave dancer, Pepe making lewd and suggestive comments every five minutes -- this is not your father's Muppets. It's not Jim Henson's Muppets anymore, either.This "It's A Wonderful Life" themed movie has its moments, but not enough to save it. I cringed while watching this with my children. I still have hope for their next movie, but this one was certainly a disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+This was obviously the prototype for Mick Dundee but 'The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is funnier. I was amused throughout and laughed out loud plenty of times. Terrific central performance by Barry Crocker in the title role, an Australian who invades England to upset the poms with his free-flowing uncouth ways. Few Brits will be upset by Barry's frequently cruel observations on his hosts. The relationsip between the two countries is prickly but friendly and this is highlighted by the film's final line, delivered by a somewhat reluctant McKenzie as he boards the plane home. "I was just starting to like the poms."$LABEL$ 1
+As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand.$LABEL$ 1
+It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak "plot" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.$LABEL$ 0
+I am pretty surprised to see that this movie earned even lukewarm reviews, I found this movie downright awful. The plot flounders around trying to decide if it is a comedy or a thriller, then realizes it cannot achieve either. So it throws in the towel and continues with its absurd plot highlighted with a unintentional hilarious scene with Laura Linney, an injection, and spilled coffee that leaves the audience awkwardly squirming in their seats looking at one another like is this for real? Basically it is abysmal and really disappointing for Robin Williams fans, and it makes you think someone blackmailed Laura Linney into adding this piece of trash to her otherwise respectable resume. I wanted to leave after 10 minutes and wish I had, even seeing it for free I wanted someone to pay me for my wasted time. The computer glitch/twist in this movie was embarrassingly stupid, and by the end you don't care who wins the election. I vote for straight to DVD.$LABEL$ 0
+I LOVED this movie because Bobbie Phillips can REALLY FIGHT! I always hate when actors are not believable in action parts. It was great to see, no offense, but a WOMAN who can skillfully perform martial arts and fighting. If you compare this with most action movies with females you will DEFINITELY see what I mean. They don't have to cut up the shots with someone that can fight and it flows better. I was VERY impressed. I hope there's more!$LABEL$ 1
+Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the rare movies that I did not immediately discuss with my friends after watching it. This wasn't because it had particularly entranced or impressed me. The contrary, it had given me nothing at all.Why? Because somehow, everything was so much overdone that I couldn't take this film seriously anymore. There was so much sex and violence that I got the strong impression that the film was trying very, very hard to be offensive, as if it was aiming at superlatives in ugliness, rather than in telling a convincing tale about two women caught in a spiral of crime.Baise-moi had been described as "Thelma & Louise with actual sex" to me. Well, it is true that the main idea is similar. There are two women traveling through the country because they've committed crimes and know that their lives are finished now, that the police are going to catch them, and they decide that now that everything's over anyway, there is no way to hold back.Baise-moi had been described as a feminist film where women, who had suffered from male dominance in the past, exact revenge upon the men that they encounter.This is something that I had never interpreted into this film, simply because none of these women had ever been innocent, and because they do not just kill irresponsible, violent men, but also men that they seduce themselves, men that show the sense of wanting to do protected sex. And they kill women. No, they are in no way better than the characters that they encounter and murder in hideous, brutal ways.How easily the "heroines" decide to murder, and how much pleasure they take in it, made it absolutely impossible for me to relate to them in any way, or even take them seriously. It was just all too much. Too much sex, too much violence. I got the feeling that sex and violence were only there in order to create a superlative in ugliness, rather than in conveying a story, or making a point.Baise-moi left me with no impression, hadn't set me thinking, because it was so far removed from any real world. So constructed, unrealistic and over the top.There was nothing that I could do with this film, there was simply nothing about it to think about, other than "Why did they make this terrible film?" Had the intense unpleasantness going on in this film, served a purpose, I'd easily accepted it. But since I found nothing, since the film's story appeared to be not more than an excuse to squeeze as much and as ugly sex as possible into one film... I filed it away under "unnecessary torture", decided to never ever, EVER, watch this film again, and I now consider this to be the worst film I've ever seen. Worst, not just because it really isn't my cup of tea to watch people get raped, rape, have sex in other forms and kill one another... but because whatever it was that the makers wanted to tell the world with their film... if they wanted to say anything at all... it just didn't work. And there's nothing else that could save this film, because it's also filmed in such an ugly style.$LABEL$ 0
+Although the likeliness of someone focusing on THIS comment among the other 80+ for this movie is low, I feel that I have to say something about this one. I am not the kind of movie-watcher who pays attention to production value, thought-provoking dialog, or brilliant acting & directing. However, I claim that this movie sucks. I don't know why I don't like it... I mean it has almost everything i want out of a horror movie: blood, outrageousness, unintentional humor, etc. According to this evidence it should be my favorite. Still, Zombi 3 is a baaad movie.There are just too many things that compels you to yell at the screen. Like when the girl leaves the army guy when their car breaks down to find water (this spoils nothing so don't worry). She walks into what I see as an abandoned hotel or something. Did she not see that there was a friggin' lake in the middle of the building??? Yes she's looking for water and passes up a lake. Why? Cuz she wants to know why the people (who aren't there cuz the place is abandoned) won't answer her when she calls out: "Is anybody there?" Oh this is just a little, insignificant piece of the big picture I'm painting.There is a reason, though, why I gave this film more than 1 star. It's one of those movies where if you forget how bad it really is, like I have a few times, you'll want to watch it again because it's just so over-the-top in every aspect. I called it blood in the first paragraph, but this movie has no blood, it has an ocean of gore. Also, it has pretty weird creatures in it as well: a zombie-baby (with an adult-size hand???) and a magically flying head to name just two.You know when you try to think of the worst and cheesiest movies ever made and you come up with '50's sci-fi movies? I believe that Zombi 3 and movies like it should top those. It has all the elements: scientists arguing with the government, warnings of the apocalypse on the radio, armies battling monsters, and so on. This IS the Plan 9 of the '80's! While I won't say that this is a waste of money if you want to buy it, just expect the very worst. And when you find out that expecting the worst is underestimating Zombi 3, it won't be all that bad. You might actually like it, I'm not saying that's impossible.Don't think I hate this movie, I don't... really. Oh, P.S. Killing Birds (aka Zombie 5) rules! (did I just blow my credibility?)$LABEL$ 0
+I was so looking forward to seeing this film that I can't really understand how I got the impression I would enjoy it. I'm afraid it really is a yawn fest - every single patron in the cinema I attended yawned and fidgeted frequently during the whole film. This is a shame because it is a fantastic story - I'm inclined to think that it would make a better read. It is not helped by the principle character only showing his teeth once - and that was as a result of the camera angle. As the story unfolds it becomes easier to understand the main character's dilemmas. However, the suspense and drama that could have made this a really top rated film have been completely spoilt by the dull treatment. Dull as a half-baked documentary!$LABEL$ 0
+One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too "sophisticated" in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, I loved Bruce Broughton's music score, very lyrical, and this alone added to the film's charm. The best aspect of the movie were the three animals, superlatively voiced by Michael J.Fox, Sally Field and the late Don Ameche. Whereas Fox has the funniest lines, Ameche plays a rather brooding otherwise engaging character(the voice of reason), and Field adds wit into a character that is always seen telling Chance off. The humans weren't as engaging, and sometimes the film dragged, but that is my only complaint. This is one beautiful-looking film, with beautiful close up shots of Canada, I believe. Although the film itself is quite long, there is never a seriously dull moment, and this is advantaged by the voice work and a well-written script. All in all, a charming and perhaps underrated film, with a 9/10 from me. Bethany Cox.$LABEL$ 1
+While John Garfield seems to get the bulk of attention, the true star of Four Daughters is Priscilla Lane. Her performance is the glue that holds the large cast together.Her ability to interact equally well with John Garfield and the more carefree Jeffrey Lynn is at the core of the success of Four Daughters.$LABEL$ 1
+A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a really great film in the pulp fiction genre with a touch of film noir thrown in. Truly one of Emma Thompson's best performances to date...this film has everything, it's well written, well directed, beautifully films, and has some great performances. I don't know why it didn't catch on. It's spectacular!$LABEL$ 1
+Not a terrible movie... But there are monster scenes where you will be rolling on the floor laughing - not a good thing for a action/thriller. The acting is generally pretty decent for a SciFi channel movie. Barry Corbin plays a credible US senator, and Lou Diamond Phillips again gives us a decent military/police/sheriff/agent/marshal figure. The special effects are well, "special" - for example, the external train shots are very obviously a model train.Goofs: A meteor strikes a stationary car in the opening scene. The car bursts into flames but does not budge an inch. After the impact, the meteor is lodged in the top of the car's hood - impossible from the low angle that the meteor came in at.Spoilers...A good portion of the movie's events are predictable, from the helicopter crash ("Pull up, pull up!"), to the fact that the annoying people get it in the end, to the classic blown bridge over a 1000 foot gorge awaiting the train, to the sequel set-up at the end.The scenes showing the aliens attacking are hilarious. They are vicious cute puppets and move at lightening speed - remember the Monty Python rabbit? Spoiler Goof: In one scene four people shooting clip after clip cannot hit a single creature because they move at lightning speed. Later in the movie Todd Bridges rigs up a mini flame thrower which he uses to dispatch a number of creatures at close range. On several occasions, Lou Diamond Phillips is able to easily grab creatures with his bare hands.$LABEL$ 0
+Police Story is arguably one of the best works by the master of action himself.Compared to other action films,Police Story makes Schwarzenegger and Stallone look like beginners.The stunt scenes are well cheorgraphed and the action scenes are superb.If New Line Cinema has any sense,they would release this in theaters.$LABEL$ 1
+The first episode of 'Man to Man with Dean Learner' that just aired was at least up to scratch with most episodes of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' and had me at "My Maisonette". Hope it keeps up the good work of 'faux terribles' on my TV. Richard Ayoade is one of the best in the new breed of "alternative comedy"(I hate this phrase but am too lazy too think of another one.) comedians on TV today.I'm glad that on a trip of local DVD retailers today "Garth Marenghi's Darkplace" was sold out across the board. Even from his brief stint in Nathan Barley I knew that Ayoade was a serious talent and I'm sure he would have been great as Dixon Bainbridge in 'The Mighty Boosh' To continued success! In the vein of these programs I also felt it necessary to extend my review, in order to secure a place on this public domain.$LABEL$ 1
+If you weren't there, then unfortunately this movie will be beyond compassion for you. Which as I say is a shame because although some of the acting is amateurish, it is meant to be for realism. Let's face it--in real life, we don't say things in an exacting or perfect way, even when we mean to. In this sense, it works. This, however, does not apply to our "known" actors in this film, notably Jodie Foster (born a natural). The fact that the other 3 girls are not accomplished only adds to the story--Jodie plays the glue that struggles to keep their friendship close, even with the obvious feeling of fatality. Meaning that no matter how close friends are, eventually there are some people that just fade away, no matter how you try.And therein is the core of the movie. It's not about partying, it's not about sexuality, but about these 4 girls and their final time as still young girls before they have to go the world alone.If you have ever had a friendship like that in your life, you will feel this movie--it will mean a lot to you, no matter what era it is set in, or what era you grew up in. We all knew these girls in school, or at the very least knew of them. We all knew the frustrated virgin, half wanting to hold onto childhood and half wanting desperately to grow up and thinking that will do it for her. We all knew the boy-crazy one, the fashion plate whose vanity hides her fear of the world, her fear of acceptance. We all knew the party girl, the one they whispered about, with tales of not only her sad home life but of her notorious exploits. And we all knew the "mother figure", the one a little more real, a little more grounded, a little more sad because she knew what would happen. Maybe you were one of those girls. Maybe, like me, you had been each one at one time or another...This film really captures that fragile time in life when want, needs, pressures, womanhood, childhood, the world and loneliness are all embodied in each female's head, each factor on the precipice. Which aspect do you hang on to? What do you toss over the edge, no matter how you may want to hold on? And how painful is goodbye to everything you've known? That's what this movie is--steps into womanhood while clinging onto childhood, and how damn tough it is to keep walking. If you were there, you know...and love this film, as I do. Aching and tenderly done. A fine piece of captured femininity.$LABEL$ 1
+Not too keen on this really. The story is pretty horrid and unconvincing. I enjoyed the first 10 minutes, bill nunns good. After that it was pretty appalling. Tim doesn't fit the role, he comes across as a smug self inflated ass & Pruitt taylor vince is entirely unconvincing as a trumpet player. It's a idealist film and as a musician, feel slightly offended after watching it. There's no scenes of 1900 practising or playing with his fellow band mates, he's completely self indulgent. I find it hard to build any relationship with this kind of character, maybe i'm watching the wrong film. If you have no real passion for life or sense of what musics all about then happily indulge in the suspension of disbelief and watch this waffle.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this on a cheap DVD release with the title "The Entity Force". Since I enjoy cheesy 80's horror films I thought I was in for a real treat. Sadly the film is mostly boring and you're constantly waiting for something to happen. It does eventually get somewhat interesting, but this is in the last quarter of the film. It's a case of too little too late. When the action does happen it's not that great, what we get are dead corpses 'floating' along the ground and chasing after the girls in the mausoleum. It's not the absolute worst I've seen, but you can do a lot better. I would only recommend this to die-hard collectors of cheesy 80's horror.$LABEL$ 0
+Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06$LABEL$ 0
+Seeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse.$LABEL$ 1
+The Ascent (1977) Larisa Shepitko is a name very few are familiar with. Her bright career as a director only lasted a single decade, ended abruptly by a tragic car accident. Despite her short career, she however managed to create some of the best Soviet films of her time. Her last film, The Ascent, is widely regarded as one of the finest Soviet films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, her work remained in obscurity throughout the years that followed, usually only available on rare and poor copies on video. That has now changed thanks to the folks at Criterion. They've released two of Shepitko's best works through their Eclipse department - Wings, and her penultimate masterpiece The Ascent.Set during the darkest days of WWII in snowy rural Russia, two partisans trudge their way across the land in search of food after their party is attacked by Nazi patrols. They're originally only to go to a nearby farm, but when they arrive they find it razed by the Germans. Not wanting to return empty handed, they continue on deeper into enemy territory. Along the way they must confront not only enemy soldiers, but the harsh conditions of the Russian plains, potential betrayal and their own souls.The movie does not fall into simplistic plot devices or destinations. It addresses difficult questions with painful rationality. It never takes the easy road or gives us comforting answers. The second half of the film is filled with moral dilemmas. Shepitko shows us the intimate horrors of war through the internal conflict between fellow Russians - those who collaborated and those who fought back. While she does show the collaborators as the clear heels, she nevertheless also shows why many turned to such tactics - survival.The film contains a number of religious references, particularly to the lead up to the crucifixion. This is a spiritual journey, into the hearts, souls, and minds of the two partisans and those they encounter. Shepitko and her cinematographer capture the journey in beautiful black and white photography. The camera moves in long shots, similar to the camera-work of another of Russia's greatest filmmakers, Andrei Tarkovsky. Shepitko, like many others, was clearly influenced by Tarkovsky's style, and the Ascent takes some of its rhythmic notes from Ivan's Childhood. It is a stunning film to look at, and does a fantastic job of capturing the cold and terrifying atmosphere of occupied Russia.Shepitko's husband would pay homage to her great film a decade later. Elem Klimov made his own war masterpiece with one of the greatest films I've ever seen - Come and See. The story and themes of that film were clearly influenced by The Ascent. Though that film is also a fairly obscure one, it received far more attention that any of Shepitko's films. That however acted as a bridge to Shepitko, and has been one of the best helps to keeping her work alive.The Ascent is a truly magnificent film, and rightly should be considered one of the best films of the 70s. It's stunning cinematography is inspiring; its mood is frighteningly authentic; and its lessons are unforgettable. It is, in any definition of the word, nothing less than a masterpiece. How unfortunate that Shepitko's career was cut short just as it was hitting its peak.$LABEL$ 1
+J.S. Cardone directed a little known 'Video Nasty' in 1982 called "The Slayer" and since then has gone on to have a hand in a handful of feature films; including the rubbish 2001 vampire movie The Forsaken. His latest feature film, Wicked Little Things, boasts a plot that sounds decent as well as a creepy looking poster that I seem to remember surfacing a couple of years ago in relation to a film that Tobe Hooper was meant to direct. Well I guess he felt that this one was too similar to his silly zombie fungus movie 'Mortuary' and so turned this one down. I don't blame him for it either. The plot focuses on a mother and her two daughters that move to an old house in the mountains that once belonged to her late husband. However, what they don't realise is that around a hundred years earlier; a group of children that were being used as miners were trapped down a mineshaft. Naturally, that's not the end of them and they managed to survive their ordeal and now prowl the area in search of revenge… The film is essentially a collection of clichés; from the youngest kid with an "imaginary friend", the mother who dismisses it and all the usual zombie rubbish. J.S. Cardone attempts to get the horror fans back on side with shocks and gory scenes (mostly involving kids) but its not enough. The story doesn't play out very well at all either and really did remind me too much of the earlier Mortuary, and that's not a good thing (although Mortuary is actually a better film than this one). The acting is nothing to write home about either; Lori Heuring is decent looking, as is eldest daughter Scout Taylor-Compton; but neither manages to provide an interesting performance. Chloe Moretz is slightly better than the usual child actor. The plot is given hardly any credibility and indeed the screenplay can't even be bothered to explain the reasons why the kids attack the locals. It all boils down to a typical and rather dull ending and overall I have to say that if you know your horror movies, then you can feel free to skip this one!$LABEL$ 0
+I couldn't agree more with the other comment, it's like Falling down. Peter Weller is OK and William Hurt great as always, except in Lost in Space. This is a good movie. With pretty good performances. Very recommendable. If you like Falling down you're going to enjoy this one. 8 of 10$LABEL$ 1
+This film is available from David Shepard and Kino on the Before Hollywood There Was Fort Lee, NJ, although that is a shortened version with just the "behind-the-scenes movie sections. I'm not sure if Blackhawk Films only had a film print of these parts, or they edited out the other scenes. The original Blackhawk version was retitled A Movie Romance. The complete feature does survive, but the preprint for this version had some nitrate decomposition, and a couple of sections looked bad, so that may be why Blackhawk's version was edited.Directed by Maurice Tourneur, the film has Tourneur playing himself, or more likely a caricature of himself. Supposedly, director Emile Chautard and future director Joseph von Sternberg also can be spotted.Country lass Mary (Doris Kenyon) longs for a romantic man to sweep her off her feet. She dreams of a troubadour that will woo her, but is constantly interrupted by the only available local boy, Johnny Applebloom.Meanwhile, a film company from New York (actually New Jersey) is filming a western in the countryside. Mary sees an Indian (in full headdress) and raises an alarm -- spoiling a scene that the movie company is filming. She is immediately attracted to the dashing film star Kenneth Driscoll (Robert Warwick). He encourages her to leave her home and try to become an actress in the big city.When she arrives at the studio, she discovers that everything about the movies is fake. The doors and walls are just flats that are hastily assembled for the set. That lanky walk of the western hero or the happy skip of the heroine are just acting too. The sets are on a big revolving stage, so the angle of the sun can even be manipulated. The black attendant at the studio signs all the movie stars' "autographed" photos. The signs on the wall say "Positively No Smoking", but everybody smokes anyway. Even the titles of the film (which are illustrated nicely) emphasize everything fake about the movie-making life.Movie star Driscoll is just as disenchanted with the ho-hum of everyday film-making. He makes a temporary split from girlfriend Vivian (June Elvidge) to pursue this "exciting" country girl. His plans are dashed when Mary's screen-test is a stinker. We don't get to see the actual film, but only the audience's pained reactions to it.Mary is devastated, but she doesn't want to admit to everyone back home that she was a failure, so she continues to see Driscoll and we she has lunch with him in the studio cafeteria along with other extras dressed as policemen, soldiers, cowboys, etc.Mary decides to stay with Driscoll. At a party with their movie "friends", she agrees to marry him although there is not much love between them. Surprisingly, her mother appears, with a cake especially for Mary's birthday. This causes Mary to re-evaluate her future.This film has all kinds of fascinating scenes of studios, movie sets, dressing rooms, editing rooms, etc. If you've always wondered what went on behind the scenes when a silent film was being made, this movie peeks behind the curtain.$LABEL$ 1
+I recently rented this movie as part of a nostalgic phase I'm going through. I was born in 1980, and so film from mid-80s to mid-90s has quite an important place in my growing up.This particular movie was one of my favourites, and so I was thrilled when it became available in the UK. It hasn't become worse with time, it is still a great fun film, with plenty of excitement in its own way. Sure, it pales in the shadow of bigger, larger budget films, but don't let that stop you enjoying this.Worth a rent, or even a purchase at the discount prices you'll find it for.$LABEL$ 1
+I have always been a great admirer of Nicolas Roeg and "Walkabout" is one of my favorite films. This is a film version of Roegs stage play and while most of the film takes place in a hotel room it still has some of Roegs cinematic flare. Very unique story is about a famous actress (Theresa Russell) who after a hard nights work on a film in 1954 goes to a hotel to visit a famous professor (Michael Emil) and together in his hotel room they talk. After awhile she wants to go to bed with him but as they start to get undressed her husband is banging on the door. Her husband is a famous ex-baseball player (Gary Busey) and he wants to know what is going on. The three of them in the hotel room talk about what is going on and what the future holds for them. Meanwhile, a famous senator (Tony Curtis) is threatening to take away the professors papers if he doesn't testify at a hearing. Theresa Russell is just excellent and while she's not trying exactly to impersonate Marilyn Monroe she does a wonderful job of exuding the phobia's and nuances that Monroe is very well known for. One thing the film does is show her as not only a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown but show her as a physical wreck as well. She talks of being unable to have children and at one point in the film she suffers a miscarriage. You can make an excellent case that this is Russell's best performance and I probably wouldn't argue. The film does an interesting thing in showing many flashbacks as the characters continue to talk about one thing and in the flashback we see one of many reasons for their actions. Busey also gives a good solid performance and it reminds me of what a strong persona he gives off on screen. Emil as the professor is a character that has many more things on his mind then we originally thought. The last scene in this film is a demonstration of his darker side! One of the highlights of the film for me is the little conversation he has with the elevator man (Will Sampson of "Cuckoo's Nest") and they discuss what Cherokee Indians think about at all times. But of course the famous scene in this film is where Russell demonstrates to Emil how she does understand the theory of relativity and uses toys to show this. The professor is delighted by her demonstration and so are we! Russell and Roeg are married in real life and they do admirable work when they are in collaboration and this is probably their best film together. Good performances and a very interesting job of directing make this a challenging and visually thought provoking film.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the best memories of my childhood. Should be on DVD. It captured everything we grew up with in the seventies - peace, mellowness, flower power and great acoustic music. The two hosts, Carol and Paula, were the definitive peacenik hippies, with long hair, peasant blouses and bell bottoms(they looked like a Katherine Ross(ala "The Graduate") and Ali McGraw(ala "Love Story"),respectively.)They made us happy with jokes from the daisy "chucklepatch", gave us lessons on being nice through conversations with the crotchedy garden squirrel, and entertained us with music from their guitar. They were the best, and Carol was also the original Sandy in the original production of "Grease"(cool).This show should be in a time capsule from the era that would also include, "The Yellow Submarine", "Arrow to the Sun", and Marlo Thomas', "Free to Be...You & Me.", also, "Sunshine", and "The Point."And last, but not least, that theme song, "See ya, See ya, Hope you had a good, good time, ah ha, Glad we got to say good mornin' to ya , Hope we get get to see ya again, See ya, See ya, Glad that you could stay awhile, ah ha, hope we get see ya again, see ya, see ya.$LABEL$ 1
+Don't bother. A little prosciutto could go a long way, but all we get is pure ham, particularly from Dunaway. The plot is one of those bumper car episodes... the vehicle bounces into another and everything changes direction again, until we are merely scratching our heads wondering if there were ever a plot. Gina Phillips is actually good, but it's hard playing across from a mystified Dunaway playing Lady Macbeth lost in the Marx's Brother's Duck Soup. Ah, the Raven...now there's an actor. And there is the relative who just lies and bed and looks ghostly. Or Dr. Dread who's filled with lots of gloom and no working remedies. I'm one of those suckers who just has to see a movie to the end. Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.$LABEL$ 0
+This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen this film only the one time about 25 years ago, and to this day I have always told people it is probably the best film I have ever seen. Considering there was no verbal dialogue and only thought dialogue i found the film to be enthralling and I even found myself holding my breath so as not to make any sound. I would highly recomend this film, I wish it was available on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+I haven't read a biography of Lincoln, so maybe this was an accurate portrayal......And maybe it's because I'm used to the equally alienating and unrealistic worshiping portrayals that unnaturally deify Lincoln as brilliant, honorable, and the savior of our country......But why would they make a movie representing Lincoln as a buffoon? While Henry Fonda made an excellent Lincoln, his portrayal of him as an "aw shucks, I'm just a simple guy" seemed a little insulting.[Granted, that was Bushie Jr.'s whole campaign, to make us think he was "just a regular guy" so we wouldn't care that he's a rich & privileged moron -- but that's a whole other story.]Not only did the film show Lincoln as sort of a simple (almost simple-minded) kind of guy , the film states that Lincoln just sort of got into law by accident, and that he wasn't even that interested in the law - only with the falsely simplistic idea of the law being about rights & wrongs. In the film he's not a very good defense attorney (he lounges around with his feet on the table and makes fun of the witnesses), and the outcome is mostly determined by chance/luck.Furthermore, partly because this was financed by Republicans (in reaction to some play sponsored by Democrats that had come out) and partly because it was just the sentiment of the times, the film is unfortunately religious, racist and conservative.Don't waste your time on this film!$LABEL$ 0
+Le conseguenze dell'amore (2004)is a beautifully made film that takes small carefully positioned steps towards its ending that need to be savoured in order to be enjoyed. From the contrasting landscapes, to the tightly enclosed world that the hero inhabits, we are taken by the Director and controlled from the very moment we enter the hotel. We, like the hero, will never escape from the suffocating intensity and paradoxical monotony of his criminally driven, Mafia world. That the film resists Mafia stereotypes whilst revelling in them makes it all the more successful. The concrete grave, the inevitable brutal executions and overwhelming maleness are laid bare and exposed for what they are. Just brutality and business, and no more. Life is about being part of the corporate machine that is organised crime and not about love or living for self, family or others. Our hero is indeed a hero in that he gives up his life for the sake of the touch of the beautiful barmaid, the resolution of the misery suffered by his only neighbours in the hotel and in order to escape his decorative prison. The consequences of love are indeed beautiful and brutal at the same time. See it!!$LABEL$ 1
+Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't believe I am just now seeing this film -- I think perhaps I thought it was another movie about slaves being mistreated, and I avoided Roots for the same reason -- just as I have yet to see Schindler's List -- I don't want to be "entertained" by other peoples' pain, not matter how authentic or informative it is supposed to be.So I guess the main thing I noticed about The Color Purple was that it was not about black people being mistreated by whites. The black people were perfectly capable of raping their own daughters -- or giving them away to be treated as slaves by their "husbands". It was painful to watch, but everyone redeemed himself in the end, and the acting was phenomenal! I couldn't believe the character Oprah played at the age of 35! And I adore Whoopi to start with - she was amazing. I'm so glad I was feeling lousy yesterday afternoon and Showtime was running The Color Purple.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is well made, it is beautiful and wise. It is heart-warming. It is great. And again it shows how great Peter Falk is... he is fantastic and he even gets better, the older he gets! Thank you, Peter Falk! Thank you very much for this gem of a movie! This movie entertains. There is lot of wisdom in this movie. There is lot of humor in this movie. There is life in this movie... and meaning. This movie shows, how life can be.Peter Falk is in that movie. He is just great! Where is the Oscar for Peter Falk? He deserves it so very much.Peter Falk just turned 80. I do sincerely hope that there will be more movies!Walter J. Langbein$LABEL$ 1
+Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Deathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from "exhaling cheeseburgers" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been.$LABEL$ 1
+This thing takes the horny teenager genre, very poorly respected to begin with, and completely flushes it down the toilet. The only people I would even consider recommending it to are teenage girls, for a "revealing" scene in a boys' locker room. And in the end I wouldn't make such a recommendation. To do so would be to contribute to the delinquency of a juvenile. An absolute piece of garbage with utterly no redeeming qualities.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the finest films ever made! Why it only got a 7.6 rating is a mystery. This film is a window into the world of the black experience in America. Should be mandatory viewing for all white people and all children above age 10. I recommend watching it with "The Long Walk Home" as a companion piece. If you think Whoopi Goldberg's work is about "Homer and Eddie" or "Hollywood Squares," think again. Don't miss this movie, which should have won the Oscar. (And read the book, too!)$LABEL$ 1
+FIVE STAR FINAL was one of the best films of the early 1930s. It starred Edward G. Robinson and was a very gritty story about a sleazy newspaper and their willingness to do anything...ANYTHING to sell newspapers. In particular, an old story of an innocent woman is plastered across the pages and helps to destroy her now happy life--many years after she was inadvertently involved in a scandal. The reason I loved the film so much was that it was unflinching and pulled no punches--showing just how low the publishers can be to sell papers.Here in TWO AGAINST THE WORLD, it is a remake of FIVE STAR FINAL--with a few changes. Instead of Robinson, this film stars Humphrey Bogart and he is the head of programming at a radio station, not a newspaper. Otherwise, the story is essentially the same--except that it's a bit less edgy and lacks some of the grit and sensationalism of the original. This isn't to say the film is bad--it just doesn't pack quite as good a punch as the first film. In other words, if you must see one of these films, see the first--though this film is quite powerful and enjoyable as well. As for me, I loved the story so much, I saw both films and enjoyed them both.TWO AGAINST THE WORLD begins with the UBC radio owner complaining to his programming head (Bogart) that all the "high brow" shows he's put on are getting low ratings. The owner demands muck--lots of muck in order to get more listeners. One way they discuss is to do a multi-part dramatization of a famous killing that occurred two decades ago--even though the killer was acquitted and she killed only in self-defense. However, they decide to play up the story as if she was guilty and they even go so far as to both send a writer to the lady's home pretending to be a minister(!) as well as broadcasting her current name and whereabouts. Needless to say, this ruins the woman and leads to a horrible tragedy. Then, and only then, does Bogart feel any real remorse for producing such garbage--leading to a dandy finale about journalistic integrity and decency.Well-acted, a great story idea and a message that is just as important today as it was back in the 1930s, this is one story you have to see. In particular, notice the wonderful and very emotional confrontation scene where the daughter attacks the owner and Bogart---it is one heck of a great example of acting and writing.$LABEL$ 1
+I cannot remember a more trivial, mind numbing and shallow film in other words a real chick flick of the worst kind. How can anyone watch this film and recommend it to others ? Only if they don't like admitting they made a mistake. It seems to summarise the worst of female aspirations. No real substance to it all happy and shallow. Yeah that'll please the masses. Well not this member of the masses. What a trivial load of drivel. I wanted to leave the cinema within 5 minutes of the start. And to think I paid £7 to see this ! I think this does however represent the dumbing down of cinema as with most media these days. So I like a bit of reality in my musicals call me sad or what ?$LABEL$ 0
+What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, "Something like BROADCAST NEWS." That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary$LABEL$ 0
+This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..$LABEL$ 0
+We're a long way from LAURA. Once again Otto Preminger directs, Dana Andrews stars as a police detective named Mark, and Gene Tierney is the beautiful woman who haunts him, but nothing else about WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS resembles everyone's favorite sophisticated murder mystery. Instead of deliciously quotable dialogue we get gritty, harrowing realism. While the earlier film took place in the ritzy upper echelons of New York society, here we're in the low-rent district of dark streets, hoodlums, cheap restaurants and crummy flats. Tierney, gorgeous as ever, now works as a department-store mannequin and lives in Washington Heights (the neighborhood of the "doll" who once got a fox fur out of LAURA's Mark McPherson). This time Andrews is Mark Dixon, an older, sadder, more troubled version of the cool cop in a trench coat. WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS belongs to a sub-genre of noir, movies about police brutality focusing on cops who can't control their violent impulses. Like Kirk Douglas's character in DETECTIVE STORY, Dixon owes his seething contempt for crooks to his father's criminal past. Where Douglas is self-righteous and blind to his own faults, Andrews is burdened by repressed guilt and self-loathing. He accidentally kills a suspect and covers up his actions with an attempt to throw suspicion on a slimy gangster (Gary Merrill) whom he has been vainly pursuing for years. Instead, a kindly cab driver is suspected because he's the father of the dead man's estranged and mistreated wife Morgan (Gene Tierney). Dixon, falling in love with the wife of the man he killed, tries desperately to save her father without giving himself away. Among noir protagonists, Dana Andrews had this distinction: he was incapable of appearing unintelligent. Even when playing an average Joe, as he usually did, he always comes across as unusually sensitive and perceptive; more than that, his air of being too thoughtful for his own comfort gives him that haunted--and haunting--quality that was his essence as an actor. He played ordinary guys, cops and soldiers, but always with a tragic undercurrent of seeing and knowing too much. His conscientious heroes are marked by exhaustion, guilt, the inability ever to "lighten up." No other actor could have expressed so well the bottled-up anger, the slow-burning pain, the agonized intelligence of Mark Dixon. He also has a muted tenderness, a muffled warmth and even wry humor that make him heartbreaking. This comes out when he takes Morgan to a restaurant where he's a regular, and for the first time we see this cold, brutal man trading mock insults with the waitress, whose sarcasm can't hide her affection and concern for him. When Dixon asks his partner for money to get a lawyer for Morgan's father, he supplies it even though they recently argued and Dixon threw a punch at him. There are no words about loyalty or knowing he's a good guy deep down, but we see it all in the man's anguished silence and his wife's resignation as she hands over some jewelry to pawn. Dixon's goodness comes across through other people's reactions to him as much as through Andrews's deeply moving performance. Though Dana Andrews was a minor star, he may be the quintessential forties man. He goes through some movies hardly ever taking off his overcoat; with that boxy, mid-century silhouette, further fortified by the fedora, the glass of bourbon, the cigarette he doesn't take out of his mouth when he talks, he looks imprisoned in the masculine ideal of toughness and impassivity. While many noirs romanticize the two-fisted tough guy, WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS offers an unflinching portrait of the reality behind the façade, a gripping and melancholy exploration of the roots and consequences of violence.Andrews was sadly underrated in his own time (he was the only one of the three protagonists in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES not nominated for an Academy Award, though his low-key performance is far more compelling than Frederic March's hammy, Oscar-winning drunk). Fortunately, Andrews appeared in some films that ensured his immortality, and now at last this little-known film, which contains his best performance, can be seen as part of the marvelous Fox Film Noir set. This series, including a number of never before released titles (such as NIGHTMARE ALLEY and THIEVES' HIGHWAY), suggests that Twentieth-Century-Fox may have had the finest record of all the major studios when it came to film noir.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't care what some of the reviews said, this movie was funny. The thing with this film is that you can't expect anything else except to be entertained. This is not some intellectual comedy, this is a clever popcorn movie. The three main cast members are great and work very well with each other. Shatner is a standout in the supporting cast as himself, a former TV cop, brought in by Russo's character to coach the cops on how to be "TV cops." Those are by far the funniest scenes. If you want to be entertained and just sit back for a laugh, then watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Very slow-paced, but intricately structured and ultimately very touching. A nice, very true-to-life look at a small Florida beach town in the dead of winter -- I've been there, and this is absolutely accurate.It's also the debut feature of actress Ashley Judd, and she makes a big impression here. It's hard to believe this film is 12 years old -- I remember seeing it in theaters, and I recently rented "Ruby" again. Except for the 80's looking clothes, it has held up very nicely. Ashely is so radiant and touching here, that it's hard to think of her subsequent career without wincing. Boy, talk about failing to fulfill your early promise! Anyone seeing Ashley here in "Ruby In Paradise" would assume this elegant, natural beauty went on to all kinds of interesting art films and serious acting -- instead she has become the "go to" girl for dumb action films and slasher movies! Very disappointing, but at least we have this lovely performance preserved to showcase her early promise.As some other commenter's say, this is not for everyone as it's very slow paced. This is not an action film, nor is it really a romance. The director (Victor Nunez, "Ulees Gold", another excellent character study) treats this ordinary young woman's life with deep respect, allowing her story to build slowly and with a lot of detail. In that way, I think this is one of the most moving and respectful coming-of-age stories about young women that I can recall -- it's not about Ruby's sexual awakening or "how she lost her virginity", but about her life choices and her growing maturity.A lovely film, if you take the time to watch it...I think it would be a really excellent film to show teens and young girls (or boys for that matter) and give them a chance to think about and discuss it.Particular kudos to director Nunez, who also wrote the script, which is so realistic and nicely detailed that I assumed all through the movie that it was based on a female-written novel or memoir, but in fact it's Mr. Nunez's original work. Rated 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Anyone with a young boy in the house who won't watch black & white movies should put this on their television set. When the child walks by, wondering what all the on screen shouting and shooting's about, tell him this is a picture for adults and that he isn't big enough to watch it yet. That'll hold him there for a few minutes; director George Stevens and his team will keep him to the end.I think my father did that to me, anyway, and I'm the better man for it. This classic adventure yarn, set in India during the British occupation, features a trio of Army sergeants who find their tight union facing dissolution as one prepares to marry his sweetheart. Help arrives in the form of a vicious Thuggie revolt that the soldiers find themselves united against."Gunga Din" was one of the great movies to come out of Hollywood's finest year, 1939. Even more than most great movies from that Golden year, it is entertaining in a very immediate and accessible way. The theme music is instant hummable nirvana. While shot in California, the camera work (the only thing in "Gunga Din" that got so much as an Oscar nomination) has a windblown grandeur that feels very much like the Raj of a hundred years before. The battle scenes are shot in a very realistic manner, not too violent but very messy as people fall and shoot and run in all corners of each frame in a way that feels real, not staged like some Cecil B. DeMille Biblical slaughter fest.The script doesn't just set up action scenes, it also develops the relationship of the three sergeants with great dollops of humor. The main focus is on Sgt. Cutter, chasing after tall tales of golden treasures. It's a rare actioner for Cary Grant, and his lightness is just right for a film that never takes itself seriously even as it develops taut suspense.Anchoring the trio is Sgt. MacChesney (Victor McLaglen), who dotes over his elephant Annie and tries to protect Cutter from his own hare-brained schemes. He's just as funny in his own way, leaving Sgt. Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks Jr., displaying some nice Errol Flynnish dash) as the one with the love interest and grounding enough to know he needs to chuck his boyish pals and grow up.If "Gunga Din" was a Lifetime movie, it would be about Joan Fontaine's efforts to save her man from his two loser friends and their skull crushing hijinks. But since it's a guys' film, the accent here is on how the threesome must stay together and save Ballantine from a fate worse than death, not only marriage, but as Cutter indignantly exclaims several times, the tea business, too.The political correctness police are hard on this film, not so much for the gender issue but the idea of British soldiers saving poor Indians from the vicious Thuggies. It reeks of colonial apologia. Thankfully, this film was made back when, and the producers thus felt no need to spell out the obvious liberalism at the heart of the film, that these three sergeants, so full of derring-do and false racial pride, have to be saved along with the rest of their army by a humble bhisti that only one of the three had any time for when he sought their approval. After all, for all their swashbuckling glory, the film's true sacrifice involves the title character, played so heart-wrenchingly by Sam Jaffe.Back when this film was made, movie mogul Jack Warner had a saying: You want to send a message, use Western Union. Still, it seems like the messages were flying fast and furious in "Gunga Din." I watch the film now and wonder if audiences back then were meant to wonder what Gunga Din was really up to when he led Cutter to the golden temple. Was he really plotting revenge against his British overlords? Would he have been justified in doing so, especially given MacChesney's cold treatment of him? When Col. Weed delivers that eulogy, the poem by Rudyard Kipling on which the film is loosely based, was it with a nod in the direction of imperialism's folly, of lording it over someone who proved "a better man than I am" in the end? What did they make of the Guru's great speech, delivered in perfect clipped English: "You have sworn an oath as soldiers to maybe die for a faith, which is your country, England. Well, I can die for my country and my faith as readily as you...India, farewell."Of course, the same character also instructs his brutal followers: "Kill for the love of killing! Kill for the love of Kali! Kill! Kill! Kill!" Which means we are allowed to hate him and root for the British, and save the questions about what it all means for later.What "Gunga Din" means to me, most of all, is the quickest, surest 90-minute thrill ride on video. Cutter never found his golden temple, but there's one for all of us watching "Gunga Din."$LABEL$ 1
+It's not surprising that the majority of higher-rated votes were submitted by females aged 45+. This is the timeframe in women's lives when they become the caretakers of aged and ill parents. I lost my mother, from complications of cancer, in June, and went through most of the same emotions portrayed by Zellweger in this film. Yes, it made me cry, but the tears were real, the characters were real, and the plot development extremely accurate. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for a wonderful portrayal of life and death, and the promises of tomorrow.$LABEL$ 1
+Stay the hell away from this one... No, really I'm serious - I know you might think this is a fun, campy, cheesy Hong Kong action style B movie. I did, but trust me, it's not. In fact, the only thing accurate about that description would be the words Hong Kong, and then only used in a strictly geographical sense.Yes, Donnie Yen has co-directed it. Jackie Chan has a cameo. The guy Ekin Cheng, from Storm Riders plays the lead. It got vampires. It should be good - or at least fun, charming and action packed. Once again - it's not.I could digress on why this movie sucks - I could dissect it, hack it to tiny, shivering pieces. But where to start? There's so much to hate...To make it easier, and to give this hate-fest some credability, let me say that I'm usually a big fan of Hog Kong cinema. The heavier drama stuff as well as the more lighthearted action and/or comedy.The really good movies as well as the really cheesy ones. I can sit through hours of bad subtitling, jokes lame enough to make first graders roll their eyes. I can handle lovers as chaste and celibate as a convention of nuns, that and pretty much anything else the average film goer would bang their metaphorical toes against on their way between action sequences. Also, Hong Kong or any other origin - I love it when a movie goes from just being bad to bad enough to be good.But this - Arrgh! It's just horrible, STUPID, unwatchable garbage. So far from being funny or charming it's actually painful. So derived of action it makes a Bergman movie look like the Texas chainsaw massacre.Why?! Why waste such an opportunity?! This could have been so much fun!$LABEL$ 0
+I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his "Werewolves and Lollipops" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.$LABEL$ 0
+I have been a rabid Star Trek fan since 1966. Still am. One thing I learned from Star Trek is that the special effects are secondary to the characters. Encounter At Farpoint fails in its mission.Superbly produced.POORLY directed, written, acted. D.C. Fontana really blew this one. This episode is so embarrassing the master tape should be burned.The first half of the first season didn't fare much better.$LABEL$ 0
+So so special effects get in the way of recapturing the interesting relationship between Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara that we remember from the TV series. And what was with the suit? Annoying!$LABEL$ 0
+Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old? There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell. Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on. Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q.$LABEL$ 1
+Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as "An American Werewolf" movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to "London".*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.However there were a few things that saved this one from total "turkeydom", there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word "moon" in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.**1/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.)$LABEL$ 0
+I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the "gratuitous" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.$LABEL$ 0
+Gojoe is part of a new wave of Japanese cinema, taking very creative directors, editors and photographers and working on historic themes, what the Japanese call "period pieces". Gojoe is extremely creative in terms of color, photography, and editing. Brilliant, even. The new wave of Japanese samurai films allows a peek at traditional beliefs in shamanism, demons and occult powers that were certainly a part of their ancient culture, but not really explored in Kurosawa's samurai epics, or the Zaitochi series. Another fine example of this genre is Onmyoji (2001). I would place director Sogo Ichii as one of the most interesting and creative of the new wave Japanese directors. Other recent Japanese period pieces I would highly recommend include Yomada's Twilight Samurai (2002) and Shintaro Katsu's Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (2003).$LABEL$ 1
+Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.Amateur in the extreme! Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!$LABEL$ 0
+Whoever saddled this piece of drek with a title like Riddle deserves some kind of Award; there are dozens of riddles here like who conceived such a dire project, who funded it, who cast it, who persuaded Vanessa Redgrave to share even ONE scene with Vinnie Jones and so on. The most sane voice connected to the whole schmeer belongs to the person who decided - very, very wisely - that this was unreleasable and not even good enough to go straight to video/DVD which throws up yet one more riddle, why - if we rule out serious payola - did the Mail On Sunday get involved and deign to give it away. This has Golden Turkey written all over it and smacks of being shot in two days in somebody's garage and cobbled on to some library footage of London except somehow you KNOW that someone actually DID shoot this on location when it would have been kinder to shoot him/herself. Vinnie Jones and Julie Cox are not even cardboard cutouts more like tissue paper and I swear Pete Doherty and Kate Moss couldn't have done worse whilst Derek Jacobi is a grotesque joke and the plot moves with the speed of the Irish team sliding UP the Cresta Run. Apart from that ...$LABEL$ 0
+Flame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has "Attack of the Monsters" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!"$LABEL$ 0
+This tale set in Wellington, New Zealand suburbia (Tawa -home of the renowned Tawa College) is McCarten's first feature.With a contemporary New Zealand flavour Via Satellite abounds with absolutely hilarious situations which develop in the (adult) family context. At the same time it manages to invoke intense emotions of sadness and despair.One of the most moving and humourous movies of the year - not to be missed!$LABEL$ 1
+George Sluizer of THE VANISHING fame ( He made both the haunting European original and the Hollywood remake ) directed CRIMETIME . He shouldn't really be blamed for this confused , poor movie because all the problems lie in Brendan Somers script . It's ill focused and lazily written . For instance the killer hangs around a nightclub waiting to pick up a victim , any victim and starts talking to a teenage girl . Cut to the next scene where she tells the villain " I've told you everything about myself , tell me about your life ? " Unfortunately the girl has told the baddie her life story off screen and is a terrible example of the screenwriter not being able to bring a character to life through dialogue . I know for a fact how bloody difficult this is but for a screenplay that is produced the writer should have tried harder It's difficult to explain the message of the film . At some points it feels like it's trying to be a British NATURAL BORN KILLERS satarising the media's voyeurism with crime ( Perhaps it even influenced the infamous video game MANHUNT ) but the script isn't witty enough to carry this off . When you've got a sex scene that doesn't progress the plot or characters or hint of subtext you know you've got a badly written screenplay and CRIMETIME is a badly written screenplay$LABEL$ 0
+I really liked the movie, thought it was very entertaining as well as dramatic. But I just had a question about the music is the movie. I haven't been able to find any kind of soundtrack(if there even is one). And specifically ,I was wondering if anyone could tell me the name of the song that is playing while the boys are going down the river on their way to New Orleans? I thought it was something along the lines of "My great escape", but I've searched on the internet, books, pretty much everything I could think of to try to, and I just can't find it anywhere. If someone could help out it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen "professional" reviews claiming Julia Roberts playing herself was "clever and very funny". I think NOT. An actress playing herself? And doing it with her same usual dizziness whenever she tries comedy? Talk about Hollyweird narcissism at it's utmost. Why doesn't she just stand there and go, "Me, me, me. Look at me!." The director and writer should be shot for not thinking of something better then this in what could have been a charming sequel. and by the way Steven, when the audience starts paying more attention to the weird camera angles then the story you have a problem. Capra, Hitchcock, all used some creative cameras but they were talented enough not to lose the audience in them or just show off with the camera. You seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule of film-making in the name of "style". The Pitt and Zeta Jones chemistry is quite good however, perhaps if they had made the film more focused around them and dispensed with the narcissism it might have worked. Once again Zeta Jones shows how she's got more talent and beauty then Roberts could dream of. Sadly, this film wastes talent and fails on many accounts. I want my money back.$LABEL$ 0
+Fabulous costumes by Edith Head who painted them on Liz Taylor at her finest!The SFX are very good for a movie of its age, and the stunt doubles actually looked like the actors, even down to body type, a rarity in movies of this vintage.A cozy movie, with splendid panoramas -- even when chopped down to pan and scan.$LABEL$ 1
+My wife and I took our 13 year old son to see this film and were absolutely delighted with the winsome fun of the film. It has extra appeal to boys and men who remember their childhood, but even women enjoy the film and especially Hallie Kate Eisenberg's refrain, "Boys are so weird." It's refreshing to see a film that unapologetically shows that boys and girls are indeed different in their emotional and social makeup. Boys really do these kinds of strange things and usually survive to tell the story and scare their mothers silly! We enjoyed the film so much that my son and an 11 year old friend, myself and my daughters 23 year old boyfriend went to see the movie the next day for a guys day out. We had even more fun the second time around and everyone raved about it. It's clean and delightfully acted by a pre-adolescent cast reminiscent of the TV Classic "Freaks and Geeks". We all feel it will become a sleeper hit not unlike the "Freaks & Geeks" which didn't survive its first season but sold-out its DVD release. Do see it especially if you have boys and you'll find it stimulates conversation about fun and safety! Girls will love it because of the opportunity it affords to say, "Boys are so weird!" Don't miss it...$LABEL$ 1
+and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+it's amazing that so many people that i know haven't seen this little gem. everybody i have turned on to it have come back with the same reaction: WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!i've never much cared for Brad Pitt (though his turns in 12 monkeys and Fight Club show improvement) but his performance in this film as a psycho is unnerving, dark and right on target.everyone else in the film gives excellent performances and the movie's slow and deliberate pacing greatly enhance the proceedings. the sense of dread for the characters keeps increasing as they come to realize what has been really happening.the only thing that keeps this from a 10 in my book, is that compared to what came before it, the ending is a bit too long and overblown. but that's the only flaw i could find in this cult classic.if you check this film out, try to get the letterboxed unrated director's cut for the best viewing option.rating:9$LABEL$ 1
+And you'd be right. Black Mama, White Mama, also known as 'Women in Chains,' is exactly the kind of trashy and crappy b-movie that the premise suggests. Pam Grier has been thrown into a prison on a small island with a lot of other women, and this place seriously makes the summer camp where Martha Stewart is locked up right now look like a maximum-security prison. It's not five minutes into the movie that one of the hottie guards utters the line 'Strip 'em and get 'em wet,' and then we are introduced to a prison life that resembles some college freshman's fantasy of what the inside of a sorority house is like. The prisoners soap and rub and wrestle with each other in the shower like it's a Girls Gone Wild shoot, then they all hang out together in their dorm, openly smoking pot and discussing in a big group what would be the best ways to escape. I've never been to prison myself, but I have a feeling that escape plans are the kind of thing that you want as few people as possible to know about, prisoners or guards or otherwise. The biggest difference between this prison life and some fantasy sorority life is that the women in this movie all wear orange cardigans (and no pants. Go figure) that say PRISON on the back. Must be those generic prison outfits for prisons that can't afford pricey accessories like their prison name or prisoner numbers for their uniforms.And as is to be expected, a prison that can't afford to put prisoner identification on the backs of the uniforms can obviously not expect to be able to find guards that are interested in guarding the prisoners as much as they are in having sex with the prisoners and each other.The conflict of the movie's title refers to the fact that Lee Daniels (Pam Grier) spends much of the time handcuffed to a blonde prisoner named Karen as they are on the run from the cops after escaping from the prison. I won't go into details about how they escape except to say that you might have seen something like it in The Fugitive had they been unable to afford to stage a train wreck, and it leads into the muddled story of the conflicting interests also chasing these two women for different reasons. Karen and Lee both have their own gangs of people each hoping to rescue their respective escaped prisoner, and the cops are after both of them all the while.(spoilers) So Karen is involved with a bunch of hippies that want to Revolutionize Life As They Know It. Meanwhile, Karen just wants to get off the island, something she's been trying to do for years, and isn't it just perfect that they each need to go to completely opposite sides of the island in order to fulfill their goals. So we get this odd couple pairing and, since they are an odd couple, it's not hard to predict that they will hate each other for the vast majority of the film but grow fond of each other by the end.In a movie with so many conflicting interests, especially when those conflicting interests not only propel the two main characters in opposite directions as they pursue their goals, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a climactic moment involving the rival gangs at some point in the movie. Not about to leave anyone unsatisfied, they throw in a stupid gang standoff at the end of the movie, where everyone shoots machine guns at each other, killing each other en masse while the two women paddle safely and calmly across the river in a little boat. Nice. Even better, at the end of the movie, after a huge massacre in which lots of people get shot and spurt bright red paint all over the place, the Captain of the police looks over the masses of dead criminals covered in awful, awful special effects, and we learn that he will be a Major before dinner. Not a bad way to end the movie, the criminals all kill each other off and the cops get all the credit, but here is the last line in the film – 'It's better to win, isn't it?' Is THAT why the Captain is going to get promoted to Major? Because he figured that out???$LABEL$ 0
+The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face.$LABEL$ 0
+Ashley Judd, in an early role and I think her first starring role, shows her real-life rebellious nature in this slow-moving feminist soap opera. Wow, is this a vehicle for political correctness and extreme Liberalism or what?Being a staunch feminist in real life, she must have cherished this script. No wonder Left Wing critic Roger Ebert loved this movie; it's right up his political alley, too.Unlike the reviewers here, I am glad Judd elevated herself from this moronic fluff to better roles in movies that entertained, not preached the heavy-handed Liberal agenda.$LABEL$ 0
+Klaus Kinski popped up in a sizable number of spaghetti Westerns throughout the 60's and early 70's; he was usually cast in secondary parts as nasty villains. Kooky Klaus lands himself a juicy lead role as Crazy Johnny Laster, a foul, twitchy, and deranged sex maniac who comes up with a plan to abduct a lovely heiress in order to obtain her considerable inheritance. Johnny and his gang become wanted fugitives after the plan goes disastrously awry. Writer/director Mario Costa ably crafts a sordidly compelling portrait of a severely sick and twisted piece of sniveling low-life work: the plot unfolds at a steady pace, the tone is appropriately gritty and serious, and the exciting action scenes are staged with real skill and brio (the shoot-outs in rock quarries are especially gripping and thrilling). Ironically dressed in white, oozing oily charisma from every rotten pore, and jumping on beautiful women every chance he gets, Kinski's Johnny makes for a fascinatingly creepy and monstrous brute. Kinski is simply spectacular as this gloriously repellent character; he receives fine support from the luscious Gabriella Giorgelli as sweet, fiery saloon girl Juanita, Steven Tedd as the cheery Riccardo, Giovanni Pallavicino as ruthless band gang leader Machete, Giuliano Raffaella as smart lawyer Gary Pinkerton, and Paolo Casella as Johnny's sensible parter Glen. Kudos are also in order for Stelvio Cipriani's moody and spirited score. Well worth seeing for Kinski fans.$LABEL$ 1
+Christopher Lloyd is funny and really believable as "Al the head angel". This movie is much better than the first, but it has great special effects that the first did not have as well as a much better plot and writing.OK - it was written for kids, but adults have as much fun as the kids do. Tony Danza does a very realistic job in his role - but this is NOT a Taxi reunion.Danny Glover is actually good and even seems to be very human in his emotions as well as showing some real acting talent for a change, a pleasant change.Watch at least once - it is worth the effort to catch it.$LABEL$ 1
+Watched this flick on Saturday afternoon cable. Man, did it drag. I got the metaphors, symbolism, and all that stuff. No, I didn't care one way or another about the sexuality of the characters. But, the pacing of the story and the scripting almost put me to sleep.That is..... until Ruth Marshall got naked. If you're a breast-man who is not homo-phobic, you may want to rent it. Ruth has a lesbian sex scene that's pretty hot, and then a hetero sex scene that is a notch higher than most standard movie fare. Her jiggly D-cups made the film worth the watch.--The Mighty Avatar$LABEL$ 1
+I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...$LABEL$ 0
+It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then "Aloha Oe" on the beach! It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove.$LABEL$ 1
+FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of the best examples of Hollywood SF films. Its influence was felt for more than a decade. However, certain elements relating to how this wide-screen entertainment was aimed at a mid-fifties audience that is now gone have dated it quite a bit, and the film's sometimes sluggish pacing doesn't help. But, the story's compelling central idea involving the ancient,extinct Krell civilization and "monsters from the Id" hasn't lost its appeal and continue to make this film a relevant "must see" movie. What I'm mostly interested in saying here is that the current DVD for this movie is terrible. The movie has never really looked that good on home video and it's elements are in dire need of restoration. I hope that will happen soon and we get a special edition of this SF classic.$LABEL$ 1
+I did not read anything about the film before I watched it, by chance, last Saturday evening. And then, as I was watching it, I felt the misery of Lena and Boesman into my bones. I was so captivated by the acting and the tone and the filming that I listened only partially to the dialogues. My husband fell asleep soon after we went to bed and I was sleepless, under the impact of the film. I wanted to wake him up just to say:"if I would ever vote for an Oscar nomination, it would be for these two actors." I decided to wait until the next day. Then I read more about the film on IMDb, and was sad to learn that Mr. Berry died before the release of the film and that he had probably never seen the last version of his brilliant masterpiece. I still want to tell him that to me his film was a true independent film, in its concept and spirit. The actors are to be praised not only for their brilliant performance but for accepting a part with no shine, no showing off, well to the contrary, displaying the true image of human depression. Sad but poignant.$LABEL$ 1
+Another trashy Grade Z quickie from the prolific Albert Pyun. Tim Thomerson´s 13 inch Clint Eastwood-like cop from outer space chases an ugly flying head(!) to Earth and gets involved in a gang war in South Bronx! Mercifully short, but deadeningly dull, with the cheesiest effects since Attack of the 50Ft Woman. They should have fired the continuity guy, too: Note how Thomerson´s sunglasses disappears and reappears in every second shot. Laughably bad, but that´s why we watch these movies, ain´t it? Sequel ´Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys´ is reportedly even worse, if that´s possible.0 (of ****)$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie, thinking it looked like a wonderfully delightful historical piece. What I got was a piece of pure garbage. This movie was confusing in most spots, choppy in almost every spot and dreadful in all spots. Mira Sorvino's portrayal of a queen playing a young male scholar was depressing at best. Ben Kingsley should have been stripped of his knighthood for even considering this film as one of his projects. Fiona Shaw should definitely stick to playing Petunia Dursley; at least the Harry Potter movies are more entertaining than this thing they call a play within a movie.The cinematography looks like some college kid took a class in Cinematography 101 and failed miserably. Almost every scene in the movie is chopped up for some sort of effect; the end result of course being the cheesiest bit of editing I've ever seen. Jay Rodan was almost good as Agis; too bad he had such a bad script to work with. Rachael Stirling gives her best effort as the almost gullible lady in waiting. In the end, I really wish Blockbuster Video gave refunds. I'm so glad I didn't spend 10 bucks watching this fiasco in the theater. If they've been performing this Marivaux play since the 18th century, it makes me wonder how many people over the ages have had their best naps during this work. If I had been there, they wouldn't have hear the play over the snoring. Thank goodness for the modern convenience of DVD players; you can skip past the boring or awful scenes. Guess that means I only watched the beginning and the end!$LABEL$ 0
+Who else other than Troma can take the classic tragedy and change it around to todays standards???? No one....in my opinion the Leonardo DiCaprio one sucked. Tromeon & juliet is a definite stretch from the original Shakesperan tragedy, but it holds up well. Its sick, demented, twisted, but yet insanely funny and fulfilling. For the most part it follows the true Romeo and Juliet story, but many Troma elements are added. Will Keenan gives a great performance as Tromeo. The acting is solid and the story is great. Many people look past these movies, not only the Kaufman Troma movies, but all the ones they distribute. Sure Troma movies are an acquired taste, but you need to see some of these. It is renegade filmmaking at it's best.$LABEL$ 1
+Significant Spoilers! This is a sick, disturbing movie... just like the sick, twisted director, Jennifer Chambers Lynch who also wrote it. I don't even know why I gave this movie a rating of 2. It is not the fault of the actors for sure. The cast certainly portrayed their roles well. It is the way this movie was written and the way the characters were written which was the benchmark of a truly sick mind.I do know that I will never, ever watch another movie which has been written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch. She is a sick, twisted, foul-mouthed, foul-thinking deviant. She looks, speaks and sounds like some biker chick with her brain fried on drugs, who spent 20 years doing hard time. You can clearly see what kind of person she is by watching her on the DVD special features section of "Surveillance: The Watched are Watching." You can see and hear her for yourself. She was every bit as bad as I had envisioned from the writing of this movie.I'm not shocked by bad language, although this director certainly talks like a sailor. This goes far beyond simple bad language; worse than any p0rn film. The level of implied sado-violence and perversion she incorporates into every character she writes are of the genre which is even illegal by p0rn standards. This perverse, disturbing thinking is clearly apparent in her own personality and things she says. Another reviewer found the description I was seeking. This is a snuff film.Be sure to listen to her narration on the deleted scenes and alternate ending. This director/writer is truly a sick person. I can't believe anyone would put her in charge of a movie, much less pay her for it. You can be assured that I will never, ever watch another movie she has been affiliated with. In the thousands of movies I have watched and collected, there are only a couple directors and writers which have merited this kind of boycott. She is offensive beyond anyone I have ever seen connected with filming a movie before. There have been some bad directors and writers, but none could compare to her sick, twisted mind.When I saw this movie, which was just one murder rampage after another. Once it got past the hotel murder... then the sick cops shooting at and brutalizing drivers for kicks... the vacation family with the bad parents (who had no business being in the presence of children)... followed by the drug addicts.... the movie then proceeded to the (even more) twisted, deviant serial killers.As I saw the serial killers reveal themselves, I began to wonder what kind of truly sick mind wrote this movie. Those were my actual thoughts as I watched this movie. I fully intended to find out what writer had such a sick mind... because that writer seriously needs to be committed for long-term psychiatric treatment. To my surprise, it turned out to be the director. When I saw and heard what she had to say on the DVD, I realized my assessment of the writer was right on the nose. On the DVD, she was indeed the sick, twisted person I had envisioned writing such a disturbing film.While the little girl, (Stephanie) Ryan Simpkins, truly stole the show... I can't believe that her real-life parents would have tolerated this sick, foul-mouthed, director to be anywhere near their daughter.This movie is disturbing, sick, offensive, twisted and the director-writer needs some serious treatment in a mental facility.As far as the ending of the movie goes... the alternate ending, should have been the outcome of this horrific ordeal. There was no point and no benefit to the film or the story or the flow of the film by the death of the other character. I'm stunned that any studio actually distributed the movie. The trailer was completely misleading. The only reason the movie got the audience it did was due to the clever wordsmithing and creative depiction on the trailer. That trailer is not representative of the movie you will see.Other than the child... every character in this movie was a sick, murderous, twisted, perverse, violent sex freak and their characters are mirrored the mind of the writer-director who created them. But if you watch it carefully, even the parents of the vacationing family; the sick cops taking pot shots; the serial killers posing in alternate roles; cops in the station; and even the station dispatcher... every single one of these character roles incorporated a sexually, twisted, violent pervert. I'm not too sure about some of the actors after watching them talk about the filming of the movie and the Canadian town in the Special Features section of the DVD.This writer-director has such a personal mental deviation that no matter what she writes, every character role contains those same carbon copy stamps. The only character which did not have these deviant tendencies was the child. Watch closely and you will see this in every character. Then listen to the director-writer talk on the DVD Special Features section and you will understand what I'm telling you about her mental state and psychological issues. She wouldn't be tolerated in too many decent homes if she were not from a Hollywood film making family.Fortunately, Jennifer Chambers Lynch does not have much of a filmography... less than a handful of things. Since she carbon copies those disturbing traits in all of her character roles, I don't think we'll have to see many movies written or directed by her unless her dad, director David Lynch helps her out. I'd recommend staying away from any movie she is involved with... and I'm not too sure her dad's films would be any better.Do yourself a favor. Avoid anything written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch.$LABEL$ 0
+I just watched Nightbreed for the first time since seeing it in the theater almost 20 years ago, and while I remember liking it at the time, I don't remember being blown away by it like I was today. I really can't complain about anything in this movie. Craig Scheffer is excellent as the lead character of Boone. I never understood why he hasn't had a more successful career, because most of his early work is outstanding. As good as Scheffer is, Cronenberg is even better. His portrayal of the psycho Dr. Decker is unforgettable, and steals the show. The rest of the cast, which includes Doug Bradley is very good, save for the ridiculously over the top redneck sheriff. The visuals are good, and in some shots great. The Danny Elfman composed score is as good as it gets, and is among his best work. The ending was epic, with nonstop action for close to twenty minutes. Overall, Nightbreed is a tremendous accomplishment for Clive Barker, and ranks as my favorite of his movies, just slightly ahead of Hellraiser. 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.$LABEL$ 0
+That's right. Ohwon (the painter and the main character) is an exceptional person. What strikes me most is the message this film might address to all of you people there. And the message is sad. It says that, it's very difficult to do anything that's amazing or maybe even genius without having to obey the governments, establishment and other VIPs of this world. And even if you try, you might not be able to bear it. It is about the battle of a single person with a system. With many systems.A great film of this wonderful Korean director. Please see it if you do have an opportunity.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in "Little Germany"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.Now the (few) good ones1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few "what the ef" momentsBoll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.$LABEL$ 0
+I stumbled upon this movie by accident. I mean, how else could I find out? It wasn't hyped at all by the studios, nor did I even hear about it's release from my normally plugged in friends. After throwing my money away on so many bad movies this year, I wish I could've seen this one in theaters as opposed to DVD. Mike Judge is the master of disguising deliciously intelligent humor in a low brow package. Just watch "King of the Hill" for a while...it's ostensibly redneck humor, but it's a very subtle jab at rednecks while being very sympathetic at the same time. I read the tagline for this film, and immediately I ordered it off the internet. I really don't understand where these negative reviews are coming from, except maybe from Carl's Jr. This movie is not only hilarious, but it's balanced as well. Moments of levity are interspersed between hilarious sight gags and jabs at our current superstar/corporate culture. Sure, there is some fart humor, but it's only there to laugh at derisively. The premise is only semi-plausible, but since when did that even matter? I don't see people heaping scorn upon "Futurama" because the premise is very similar. Just watch this movie. If you don't laugh, then something is really wrong with you. Maybe your dad works for Gatorade or something, and he was really offended by the movie. Maybe you're an idiot. Probably the latter.$LABEL$ 1
+The script for this Columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980's soap opera. Deeply character-driven films are great, but only if the characters are compelling. And in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. The villain's dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. The great Lt. Columbo himself is no where near his famous, lovable, self-effacing, crumpled self; and the bride/kidnap victim is a whimpering, one-dimensional damsel-in-distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor - come on!!! I could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you-know-what in 2 seconds). In any sense of reality, this character would have at least TRIED to struggle or fight back at least a little. And speaking of reality....the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. The POLICE?? Give me a break. Everyone knows the FBI takes over EVERY kidnapping case. This was NO Columbo, just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar Lt. Columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours.$LABEL$ 0
+Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked."$LABEL$ 1
+When I think about TV movies, I always think of this film, I have watched it a few times on Sky Movies, it was terrible.Its been a long time, since I have seen this film, was just browsing, and came across it on here :-S.A microbiologist (Linda Flemming), goes on holiday, with her son (William Flemming), at this holiday resort kinda place, they meet up with Paul Johnson (taxi driver / owns a bar?), and Kathy Johnson.Its like a weird romantic thing, William starts to fall for Kathy, and Paul falls for Linda.Some guy passes out in a street, he has some mark on his arm, Joseph (Joseph was a deep sea diver, who on some dive, saw a light, or something, and converted to religion), says he will take care of this person, there is a gap in my memory, then there is a wide out break of the virus, I think Linda offers her help, to come up with a cure, Kathy gets infected (William notices a mark on Kathy's arm), with the virus, also does Joseph.Paul says some lines to Joseph, then Joseph stumbles away, the next time you see Joseph, he is cured some how, that information is used to cure the infected, then there is a beach party, the end.$LABEL$ 0
+When this movie was released, it spawned one of the all-time great capsule movie reviews: Sphinx Stinks. It does, but in a mesmerizing sort of way. The casting is silly, starting at the top: Frank Langella and Sir John Gielgud as Egyptians? Not enough makeup in Cairo for that, at least not while this film was being made. But it's rather amusing to see them try. The performances run the gamut from mummy-like (sorry, the obvious observation) to over-the-top, with very few stops in between. The Lesley-Anne Down character seems as though she couldn't find Egypt on a map, much less expound upon its archaeological treasures. That's due at least in part to some really bad writing, one of the curses that will be visited upon every viewer of this movie. It's my opinion that movies involving a curse or that draw their basis from a subject that is somewhat esoteric, such as Egyptology, are ripe for silly, overwritten dialogue. It doesn't disappoint, and the convergence proves a double-whammy. The plot has one driving source of dramatic tension: Can this get dumber and less believable? The answer is, usually, YES. The location shots are beautiful, and the set design is generally very good, the only consistent reminders that this wasn't some low-budget production. That and the fact that there are so many well-known faces doing service in such an unintentional laugher. Cheap, no; cheesy, yes.$LABEL$ 0
+What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started, ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there, ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than most.The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired, worn cliché of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER ***** During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but, AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER ***** Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence. But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing ***** END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE, strong 8/10!!!$LABEL$ 1
+A family (A teenage boy, his mother and a stepdad), sick of city life, decides to move to the mountains to get away from it all and have a fresh start. However, their idyll is shattered by three brothers and their domineering father, who don't take kindly to newcomers on their patch. While having objects thrown through their window and being threatened in the street is just the start, the youth decides to make things even worse by having a relationship with the terrible trio's sister. With the law unwilling to do anything about it and the violence escalating rapidly, the lad decides to take matters into his own hands..Veering wildly between hilarity and nastiness, this is one of the oddest exploitation movies ever made. At first, you can have a chuckle at some of the hammy acting and ludicrous dialogue given to the characters, especially the overwrought bad guys. But then, you get completely unnecessary scenes like a mother being raped while her son is forced to watch, or the thug's sister getting herself beaten up by her siblings for daring to sleep with our young hero. In fact, the whole view of women in the movie, which seems to be that they're pathetic creatures who scream a lot and can't defend themselves, is pretty despicable. But of course, there's the obligatory nude scene, which this time involves a young lady diving into a pool bra-less under a very thin T-shirt. Who cares about plot consistency when you have some willing young starlets ready to shed her togs. Right?!The climax centres on the teenager, who up until now hasn't been able to sneeze without jumping, suddenly morphing into a Rambo clone and blowing off his assailants left, right and centre to save his stepfather who is being held hostage by the gang. It's completely implausible but hey, so is everything else in this film.. so at least you can't accuse it of not being consistent. So, rather than attempting to find logic in a place where the word doesn't exist, check out the IMDb pages for Janet Laine Green, Dehl Berti, Stephen Hunter, Jonathan Crombie.. etc. Notice a pattern emerging here? Their careers all hit dead ends. Why? Sit through this, and all will become clear. Remember kids, if you want to get ahead in this business, hire a decent agent and ALWAYS read the scripts they offer you. Please.. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Rated NR(would be Rated R for Pervasive Strong Language and Crude Sexual Humor). Quebec Rating:16+(should be 13+) Canadian Home Video Rating:18AEddie Murphy Delirious is Eddie's first stand up comedy routine.This came out in 1983.Back then he starred in the movie 48 hrs and Trading Places and he was on Saturday Night Live.Eddie made two stand up comedy films.Delirious and Raw.I preferred Raw because I just found the subject matter to be more humorous.Delirious however is also very funny with Eddie talking about his childhood and making fun of celebrities such as Mr.T and singers such as Michael Jackson.Any fan of stand-up comedy films should see Eddie Murphy's Delirious.$LABEL$ 1
+How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.$LABEL$ 0
+Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"? I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.$LABEL$ 0
+Sure this movie is not historically accurate but it is great entertainment. Most DeMille pictures especially the later epics are slow and plodding but the action here moves at a clip. The story is basically a series of peaks with very little quiet moments. The action takes us from an Indian raid on a cabin; one of the best parts of the movie with Jean Arthur excellent while attempting to appease the war-painted natives. This is followed by her and Cooper being taken to the war camp and being tortured. Later comes a protracted battle with the Cheyenne. The whole thing is ridiculous but great fun and entertaining from start to finish. Jean Arthur is one of the best actresses of this era and she shines here.$LABEL$ 1
+A man by the name of Joseph Samuels is found brutally murdered in his apartment. It would appear that Samuels was visited by a group of drunken soldiers the previous evening, and with one of them seemingly missing, the evidence certainly implicates the missing soldier. But as detective Finlay digs deeper into the case he finds that they could be barking up the wrong tree, and that this crime is dealing with something desperately sad and vile, anti-Semitism.Crossfire was born out of the novel written by Richard Brooks, adapted by John Paxton and directed by the shrewdly excellent Edward Dmtryk, Crossfire {originaly titled Cradle Of Fear} is a taut and gripping picture that boldly tackles anti-Semitism. Tho the makers were forced to tone down the story from the original source, the novel is about homosexual hatred as opposed to anti-Semitism, what remains, largely due to RKO supremo Dore Schary and producer Adrian Scott, is a sort of creeping unease that drips with Noirish style.The cast features three Bob's, Young, Mitchum and Ryan, with Noir darling Gloria Grahame adding the emotional female heart. Tho only third billed, it's Robert Ryan's picture all the way, his portrayal as the bullying, conniving Montgomery is from the top draw and perfectly showcases the talent that he had in abundance. Ryan had good cause to give Montgomery some of is best work for he had served in the Marine's with Richard Brooks himself, both men having discussed the possibility that if the novel was to be made into a film?, then Ryan wanted in and to play Montgomery, thus the genesis of Ryan's career as weasel types was born!. Gloria Grahame also puts in a wonderful and heartfelt turn, which is all the more remarkable since she was being plagued by her abusive husband at the time. Stanley Clements was known to be violent towards her and his constant presence around the set irked others in the cast, but Grahame, probably channelling real life emotion, became the character of Ginny and shone very bright indeed. Both Bob Mitchum and Bob Young come out with flying colours as well, to really seal the deal on what a smartly acted picture Crossfire really is.Tho Crossfire was released before the other 1947 anti-Semitic picture, Gentleman's Agreement, and raking in over a million and a quarter dollars at the box office, some of its thunder was stolen by the Academy Award winning picture from Fox Studio. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor {Ryan}, Best Supporting Actress {Grahame}, Best Director and Best Screenplay, it won nothing, but critics of the time hailed it as a brilliant shift in American Cinema, and today it stands tall, proud and dark as a bold and excellent piece of work. 8.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as "camera copies" of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a great time w/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos.when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first thought was, "cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is" (i have several phone boxes and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent quality of story, character development and f/x. i was to say the least - pleased. for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but now the bar has risen...bad wolf rules!!!!!2008 update - i love David tennant! his "mod" persona is something that my generation remembers, my son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best ride on TV$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this movie about 4 years ago and i was expecting something funny, similar to CB4. I was blown away. I was on the floor laughing my butt off this movie is so great. Way better than CB4, the characters, the songs, the plot, everything. Top notch independent film that was given "Two Thumbs UP" by Siskel and Egbert (and if two old white guys can understand the humour in this flick, you know it's good).$LABEL$ 1
+I was able to see a preview of this movie through UCLA's pre-screening program, and let me tell you: THIS MOVIE IS UNBELIEVABLY GOOD!!!! I have seen many movies, but few have made me laugh so sincerely or talk about the movie afterward as much as this one. I had a decent respect for Tenacious D before seeing the movie, and now I am MAD about them. I will most definitely buy their album when it is released on the 14th and will see this movie again.If you were on the fence about seeing this movie, GET OFF AND GO SEE IT!! It is worth the extremely expensive price of movie tickets these days, as you will surely bust a nut laughing during the whole thing.Aside from the comedy, the glorious and divine music that flows from KG's guitar and JB's voice is awe inspiring. The audience is left in a stupor that such beautiful harmonies and amazing riffs can be created in conjunction with such ridiculous (and hilarious) lyrics. If for nothing other than the music itself, this movie is worth the price of admission.With a wonderfully coherent storyline tying in almost all aspects of the traditional "D" history and hallmarks, great new songs, hilarious comedy, and some pretty awesome cameos, this movie ranks up there with the best! Go see it!!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)$LABEL$ 0
+Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the most elementary sort of traditional ghost story, not even enlivened to any great extent by the use of Irish locations. If the great M.R. James had ever come up with a tale this thin -- doesn't James in fact have a story called "A Thin Ghost"? -- he wouldn't have bothered to have it published.Orson Welles appears in the limp endpieces as a favour to a brace of old friends, this film's producers. His presence and the one movie industry in-joke would have earned this will-o'-the-wisp its Oscar nomination. This is yet more proof, if any more were needed, that the Academy Awards have never been any guarantee of merit.$LABEL$ 0
+I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.$LABEL$ 0
+Parsifal (1982) Starring Michael Kutter, Armin Jordan, Robert Lloyd, Martin Sperr, Edith Clever, Aage Haugland and the voices of Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton, Wolfgang Schone, Director Hans-Jurgen Syberberg.Straight out of the German school of film, the kind that favored tons of symbolism and Ingmar Bergmanesque surrealism, came this 1982 film of Wagner's final masterpiece- Parsifal, written to correspond with Good Friday/Easter and the consecration of the Bayreuth Opera House. This film follows the musical score and plot accurately but the manner in which it was filmed and performed is bold and avant-garde and no other Parsifal takes the crown in its bizarre cinematography. Syberberg is known for controversial films. Prior to this film he had released films about Hitler and Nazism, Richard Wagner and his personal Anti-Semitism and a documentary about Winifred Wagner, one of his grand-daughters. This film is possibly disturbing in many aspects. Parsifal (sung by Reiner Goldberg but acted by Michael Kutter) is a male throughout the first part of the film and then, after the enchantment of Kundry's kiss, is transformed into a female. This gender-bending element displays the feminine/masculine/ying-yang nature of the quest for the Holy Grail, which serves all mankind and redeems it through Christ's blood. In the pagan sorcerer Klingsor's fortress, there are photographs of such notoriously sinister figures as Hitler, Nietzche, Cosima Wagner and Wagner's mistress Matilde Wesendock. The Swaztika flag hangs outside the fortress. Parsifal journeys into the 19th and 20th century throughout the film. The tempting Flower Maidens are in the nude. Kundry is portrayed as a sort of beautiful but corrupt Mary Magdalene or Eve from Genesis (played by Edith Clever but beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Yvonne Minton). Ultimately, this film is for fans of this type of bizarre Germanic/European symbolic metafiction and for intellectuals who appreciate the symbolism, the history and lovers of Wagner opera. Indeed, the singing is grand and compelling. Reiner Goldberg's Parsifal is a focused and intense voice but it lacks the depth and overall greatness of the greater Parsifals of the stage - James King, Wolfgang Windgassen, Rene Kollo and today's own Placido Domingo. Yvone Minton is a sensual-voiced, dramatic and exciting Kundry, delving into her tormented state perfectly. While the production is certainly unorthodox and as un-Wagnerian as it can possibly get (Wagner's concept was Christian ceremonial pomp with Grails, spears, castles, Knights and wounded kings, a dark sorcerer, darkness turning into light, etc typical Wagnerian themes)..it is still an enjoyable, art-house film.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie has a good start portraying an interesting and strong Shannon Lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. But later something happens and all the sudden Shannon turns into this straight faced, second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it's own context. The second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés, bad acting, a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. Not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang."Game of Death 2" was bad and clownified Bruce, but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played Bruce Lee back then. I truly believe that she can do much better than this and I hope she participates in a better production next time.If you are a real hard core action fan and don't care about quality go ahead and see this movie. I was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this film when I was in the 8th grade and I remember that it had a profound affect on me then. I saw in again about a year ago (I am now 29) and it still moved me in similar ways. This is a great movie that personifies the struggle of "principle vs. pragmistism". Voight's character is the idealist teacher that won't give in to any psuedo-racist leanings of the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington. That story also personifies the struggle of how older people often resist change, and more specifically, cultural change. Often at the expense of children. When these battles finally come to a boil, Pat Conroy loses and pragmatism reigns triumphant. Or does it? The children that he has to leave are better off for knowing him, more exposed to the "real" world and to classical music. The other teacher at the school gained respect for him and he learned much about himself. A great film with a heart-breaking ending. I recomend that anyone who enjoyed the film to read the book, "The Water is Wide", by Pat Conroy. It will stay with you!$LABEL$ 1
+How can this movie be described? Oh yeah I've got it wretched!!!I'm not big on chop socky, but this is just plain garbage. Anyone who would waste their money to pay to see it, is just too sad for words.$LABEL$ 0
+The worse film i have every seen. Like the other honest reviewers, it is just an excuse for getting naked birds with their juggs out. Don't get wrong, naked women isn't a bad thing but there is another film genre for that. Boyfriends beware. I sold this to my girlfriend as a classic bike gang fest (due to reviews) to be greeted with every other scene full of naked women gyrating about the place. Slap in the chops for me.What makes me laugh the most is all the dogey bike dives they went to in the film were full of models with the works cosmetically - what biker bars have these? They are usually slightly haggard with tattoos and far saggier juggs! Completely unrealistic.The acting is terrible, loads of pointless swearing and a complete waste of time storyline.Did anyone check out Vinnie Jones's attempt at an American accent? Its as embarrassing as his football skills.Avoid like the plague. The only reason you would watch this film is if you are a young lad who cant access p@rn and have nicked it from their parents movie collection for a few pervy kicks!$LABEL$ 0
+IQ is a cute romantic comedy featuring two great actors that seem to click well on screen. Plot is a typical guy wrong for girl, guy gets girl format, but makes the solid point that one must love with the heart and not the the mind. Addition of Albert Einstein and his band of geniuses provides excellent comic relief. Overall, a good movie. Not great, but good$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was great and I was waiting for it for a long time. When it finally came out, I was really happy and looked forward to a 10 out of 10. It was great and lived up to my potential. The performances were great on the part of the adults and most of the kids. The only bad performance was by Milo himself. There was one problem that I encountered with this (and others like it) movie. All of the characters I wanted to live were getting killed. Overall, I give this movie an excellent 9 out of 10. Maybe we should select better people to kill next time, though, ok?$LABEL$ 1
+In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying. The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director. Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.$LABEL$ 0
+this is awesome!!! there is no partnership quite like Errol, and Olivia. there love is genuine! I'm 24, yet this flick is as captivating now as I'm sure it was 60 years ago. Raoul Walsh is an under-rated genius, his direction is so sweeping, so broad, yet so intimate. the last scene between colonel custer (Flynn), and his wife (de havilland), almost brought me to tears (Not easy for a 24yr old guy!!), its so heart-wrenching. there is also a deep Christian message implicit here, the faith Custer has in taking your glory with you, and the trust, and fidelity of his wife to the extent of letting him go, in order that he fulfils his moral duty to protect the innocent civilians from certain massacre. there is no movie that deals with these issues quite like this. a must-see for anyone who wants to look at this defining moment in American, and military history, from the inside. patriotic, for all the right reasons. i knew Errol Flynn was a star, and De havilland was a screen legend-this only confirms my suspicions that they are among the very greatest!$LABEL$ 1
+I don't have words to describe how good this movie is. Only a genius like Amrita Pritam could have written such a real depiction of the days of partition. The movie kept haunting me for many days.Urmila did the role of her life in this movie. She put life in the role of Puroo and Manoj Vajpai did no less in his role as Rashid. It is hard to imagine anyone other than these two doing the role of Puroo and Rashid. The Punjabi costumes looked so natural on Urmila and Manoj looked like a natural Punjabi Mussalmaan.Sandhali Sinha as Lajjo and Suri as Ramchand did fabulous job. Priyanshu Chattarjee did good work as Triloki.Some of the scenes you just can't get out of your mind. When Puroo meets Lajjo for the first time, it brings tears to your eyes. The climax is just killer. I was expecting a tragic ending but thankfully, the ending was wonderful.This movie is in the same category as Pakeezah, Mughal-e-Azam, Banaras etc. Not to be missed.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow! I loved this movie and LOVE Judy Marte!! This girl isn't just an awesome pretty face, she's funny and really really talented!! She made me laugh many times just by being very naturally rough with Victor who was desperately hitting on her! We'll be seeing her a lot in the next coming years... and probably also from director Peter Sollett and co-star Victor Rasuk!Raising Victor Vargas is one of the best film I saw in a long time! Very refreshing! It's true, nice, funny, well filmed, it got it all : good story, good actors, good film direction!If you like simple, slow paced, real life, urban movies, like maybe Jersey Girl from Kevin Smith, you'll love Victor Vargas! It's better!$LABEL$ 1
+In "Anne of Green Gables" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of "Alice" shorts who later would adopt her character's name). Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.In fact Anne is the original "Teenage Drama Queen" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists. Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: "If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard. Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.$LABEL$ 1
+I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?$LABEL$ 0
+I saw True Crime when it was first released back in the mid-nineties and I have watched it many times since. It is a great mystery about Mary (played by Alicia Silverstone), a high school senior in a California town who's classmate's younger sister was tortured and killed by an unknown murderer. Mary meets Tony (played by Kevin Dillon), a police cadet who sees how bright she is and they decide to work together to try to find the killer.Many suspects in this one. True Crime feels very "true" or real to me. I read a newsgroup review where someone wrote that total suspension of disbelief is present here and it is so true. Alicia Silverstone is perfect in this role and Kevin Dillon and Bill Nunn do a great job, as do the other actors. The locations are right on and the writer/director, Pat Verducci, really captures some of the realities of teenage life and of Mary's loneliness (see the scene where Mary awakens from the dream sequence after having viewed the photos she took of Tony). I wish Verducci would make more movies.I have not seen any other movie quite like True Crime. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting. Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks. Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.I should be ashamed for watching it.I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.$LABEL$ 0
+I'll say one thing about this film: there are no lulls. You can't get bored watching this. The problem is that it is TOO intense. There is too much action and it NEEDS lulls! That is the risk you take in modern action films. You want it interesting but not overdone. This is way overdone.Even though the acting is fine and features a couple of "names" in Gary Busey and Roy Scheider, it still has the feel of a "B" film. The best part of it is Scheider's dialog: the only "A" part of this "B" film.The rest of the story is strictly Rambo mentality but did have a few standout scenes. One in particular was a very innovative scene featuring land mines. That was memorable. Not enough of the other scenes were to make this a keeper for long.$LABEL$ 0
+...however I am not one of them. Caro Diario at least was watchable for two thirds of the time, but the boring and self-centred third section of that movie gave us a taste of what was to come in this extraordinarily self-indulgent mess. Moretti says he feels a need to make this movie, but doesn't want to, whereas the viewer feels that he should stick with it, but really doesn't want to either. A film about Italian politics and elections could be fascinating, but this is not that film. At one point, Moretti and his friends are standing outside the Communist Party headquarters, discussing the interviews they are preparing to conduct with Party leaders inside, but it's characteristic of this film that we never get to see anything of them. Interposed with Moretti's political ravings are the events leading up to the birth of his son, and subsequent home movie shots of him with the baby and later the infant Pietro (the film drags us through several years and more than one election period). We keep expecting to see some definitive sequence or cogent argument, but they never come. I for one doubt that I could have the patience to ever sit through a Nanni Moretti movie again. He succeeds in making an hour and twenty minutes seem like an eternity.$LABEL$ 0
+Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.Save your time and money, and skip this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh dear me! Rarely has a "horror" film bored me, or made me laugh, as much as this one. After a spirited start with an intriguing premise, it descends into not much more than a slasher flick, with some supernatural and sexual asides. The usually excellent Alice Krige is wasted in this one, and the plot twists are ludicrous. Don't bother unless you're really desperate. Rating: 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+The film has weird annoying characters, strange unexplainable slapstick, and an insurmountable amount of dialogue about smoking. The movie has a contrived plot of a bitchy, empty-headed woman's (Jeanne Tripplehorn) search for love. Although who would ever like Jeanne's character, personality, or reading of the dialogue, I really cannot say. Except that she likes to smoke.Sarah Jessica Parker gives an interesting character performance (who likes to smoke). Dylan McDermott does his best to look pretty and soulful (as he smokes). And, hey, what is Jennifer Aniston doing there? Oh, she's not really in it enough for anyone to care about her. (But she likes to smoke).This is a waste of anyone's time. I don't even know how I was able to sit through as much of the movie as I did. I can't even believe I spent the time to write this, except to warn others of its banality. Anyone need a cigarette?$LABEL$ 0
+If Hollywood had the wellbeing of the audience at heart we would see 20 films a year with the kind of wholesome fortitude that is behind this film. There are several experiences of personal growth in this movie and while the characters ARE still very human even the lessons learned are not that greed will profit you, or do-unto-others-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-are-okay-with-it, no, this is what our sad, desensitized lives need, more sense... more love... more do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-unto-you... more HOPE. (thanks Ursula!) This movie has an intelligent wit, not "yo' mama" cracks that run rampant in the so-called comedies. People need to feel good. This movie will make you feel good and possibly inspire you to better your life, and the lives of others. sidenote Every person counts in ticket sales. This is a truly independent film. If you want more quality films you have to support them.$LABEL$ 1
+I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an excellent James Bond movie. Although it is not part of the original and more famous series, and it is a standalone film, it is very well done. Enticing Sean Connery to return to the role he made famous was a stroke of genius, as was titling the movie in a way that references his past vow to not play Bond again. Connery was as great as he was in his earlier 007 appearances. The script is outstanding, as are the photography and the performances. It's the earliest movie I recall with Kim Basinger, who became much more famous after this film; Barbara Carrera was excellent; and Klaus Maria Brandauer was absolutely perfect as the main villain. The frequent references to the aging of Bond and the changing times and attitudes of the British secret service were most humorous. The 007 gadgets equaled those of the other Bond films. The only thing missing was the famous 007 music theme, which, of course, could not be used by this competing production. It was rather amazing to me to be able to see two excellent James Bond movies released in the same year, this one and Octopussy with Roger Moore. An interesting aspect of the film is an emphasis on video games and computer graphics. The early 80's were the first heyday of such things, and the use of them in this film made it a very contemporary movie. The film is actually a different version of Thunderball, updated with newer technology. Regardless of the repeated theme, there are sufficient differences to make it most entertaining. I will watch this one frequently.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past.$LABEL$ 0
+Bacall does well here - especially considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: "To Have and To Have Not" (1944) and "The Big Sleep" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.I really liked the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to great affect - I especially liked the fog scene. The lighting also does a great job of adding to the intrigue and tension.Bacall is just gorgeous. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. But I still really liked this picture. There is great tension and it moves along well enough. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite bold for this period film.Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre stand out as supporting cast. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely villainous and evil in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite disturbing. Lorre also does quite well in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite well in portraying the child Else - especially considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage.$LABEL$ 1
+The film largely focuses on a bullying Robert Taylor as a ruthless buffalo hunter and the people who have to put up with him. Set amidst a hunt for dwindling numbers of buffalo, it portrays the end of a tragic era of senseless slaughter and is full of drama and remorse for both the buffalo and the Native Americans. Taylor is blinded by his hatred of Indians and his naivete that the buffalo herds will never disappear. In one scene, he shoots animal after animal, while in another he murders Indians and then eats the food they had cooking on their fire. Under this ruthless exterior lies an insecure person who is reduced to begging his comrades (Stewart Granger, Lloyd Nolan, and Russ Tamblyn) not to leave him. It's not the most pleasant of films and is weighed down by the drama it creates, leading to a dismal and very fitting conclusion in a blizzard.$LABEL$ 1
+First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character "carly" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all.$LABEL$ 0
+This really is the worst movie I have ever seen. For a while, I made a habit of watching lousy movies, including "Battlefield Earth", "Delta Force Commando" and "Starship". All of these movies are cinematic gems compared to Ironheart.There isn't much point in summarizing this piece of junk; I think it's more beneficial to summarize my reaction to the movie, which is as follows: I become furiously angry and I want to rip the tape out of the VCR and burn it after (roughly) 80 minutes of play.I rate this movie a 0, but IMDb does not let one rate a movie less than 1. I give it a 0 knowing full well that I am saying any movie that has any score above 0 is infinitely (undefinably) many times better than this one - That's really how bad it is.$LABEL$ 0
+Haven't seen the film since first released, but it was memorable. Performances by Rip Torn and Conchata Farrell were superb, photography excellent, moving story line and everything else about it was of the highest standard. Yet it seems to have been pretty much forgottenMaybe because UK is an odd market for it but I haven't seen the film on TV or video, which is sad. Has it had more success in US where it might rightly be seen as a quite accurate historical drama?Always reckon that 50% of a good film is the music and though I'm not certain I think the title theme was a simple but moving clarinet solo of "What a friend we have in Jesus". The film then went on to disprove that! Am I right or wrong?$LABEL$ 1
+This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought Anywhere But Here was a good movie.It stars two wonderful actresses, Susan Sarandon and Natlie Portman, which when I heard they were in a movie together I resist watching it.Overall, it was a pretty enjoyable movie.It had it's moments where I felt as if they tried to hard, and there was also some really overdone and worn-out material, but there wasn't anything in the movie that I absolutely hated.I even liked how they used the pop-up performance of the uncredited Thora Birch, and all the little happy/sad moments are touching and effective.If you want to watch this movie, go ahead, because even though I don't recommend it, it's not something you should avoid, and a 5.9 rating seems unfair in my opinion.$LABEL$ 1
+Richard Widmark is a tainted character in this movie. He is a professional pickpocket. He's been in prison three times, yet at the beginning of the film, he tries to make it four. Thelma Ritter is a busy body selling information to almost everybody. Jean Peters is amazing as the girl flamed by Widmark.This is a period piece during the McCarthy era where the Red Scare ruled the politics and is worked into this plot quite nicely. What is unusual about this film is that Peters & Ritter are both victims of violent beatings in an era where women were seldom more than sex objects in films. This is what makes this film noir as women often got different roles in this type of film.The film is only 87 minutes long and was obviously made by Fox as the under card for double features in the theater. The sets show it is a limited budget film. The script made J Edgar Hoover mad because patriotism is given short shrift. Hoover wanted it changed.Instead, it became a B under card picture that was a sleeper hit in 1953. The script & acting in it are better than other big features were that year.$LABEL$ 1
+I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4/10 or 5/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman? and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoralafter all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it doesconclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste$LABEL$ 0
+I was not really a big fan of Star Trek until past 2-3 years. Thanks to the advent of Netflix and post 2000 video technology distribution, I am able to embark into the past of all the great Star Trek episodes. For those that don't really watch every single episode and know them by heart, through TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc., general popular consensus will say -- "I like The Next Generation" the best. That's because Captain Picard and his crew were fresh when they first appeared after decades of Star Trek starvation. But to be quiet honest, I appreciate the creativity of Voyager's episodes more than TNG. Voyager's episodes also progresses through time unlike TNG. Granted Data from TNG is great but it eventually gets old but Voyager's doctor -- now that's creativity! Instead of making artificial intelligence awkward and jerky, give him the freedom to express beyond anything you imagined. Not only is Picardo such a great actor but the premise setting for his expansive, self growth, as a doctor, self realization now that is science fiction at its best! Endgame portray him as a husband married to an "organic", inventing neuro-implant transceiver for human-machine interface, and even -- in the episode before Endgame, to disobey Captain's order and make "human" mistakes. Unlike DS9 which are blessed with 2 beautiful women right from 1st episode, Voyager has to survive 3 seasons without Jeri Ryan and I believe it is Picardo that carried them with his personality. Of course the rest of the Voyager's cast chemistry just flows effortless, Harry Kim and Tom Paris -- very natural. I love Tuvoc occasional humor, despite being a Vulcan. Finally, I'm so glad they got rid of that original female captain -- oh, if you get to watch the rare footage -- thank God for Kate! She has developed through the 7 years into an extremely confident, believable, and respectable female captain. What a GREAT job! Thank you Star Trek for making Voyager, I enjoy every episode, the creative exploration of possibilities, of morals, and of our Cosmic expanse.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, first of all I got this movie as a Christmas present so it was FREE! FIRST - This movie was meant to be in stereoscopic 3D. It is for the most part, but whenever the main character is in her car the movie falls flat to 2D! What!!?!?! It's not that hard to film in a car!!! SECOND - The story isn't very good. There are a lot of things wrong with it.THIRD - Why are they showing all of the deaths in the beginning of the film! It made the movie suck whenever some was going to get killed!!! Watch it for a good laugh , but don't waste your time buying it. Just download it or something for cheap.$LABEL$ 1
+Stay Alive, Stay Alive, Stay Alive, I am called the attention it was the trailer and not the cartel.The topic of the movie centred on a video I play that was created by a countess to kill the people and to live eternally is acceptable.First that quite, bad movie of horror, the blood sees more or less sparked(spread gossip), these scenes is bled they are the more bad.But actually(indeed) that bad is this movie, very, very, bad, but bad in all the aspects.I do not recommend this movie to anybody, trailer well, movie bad.I do not deal since(as,like) they spend(consume) money and time doing these senseless movies and too bad.$LABEL$ 0
+This might be my favorite so bad it's awesome film of all time. like many pre-teen children of the 80's repeat viewing of revenge of ninja spawned a ninja phase of my childhood. Man i thought Sho k. was badass back then. Jet Li could wup him with both legs in a cast! This movie has insane crossovers that include flashdance,the exorcist and the Lee Van cleef ninja TV show. ugh. but as a friend of mine says anyone can get a good movie made it takes true genius to make a film that starts with a ninja surviving 17 shotgun blasts long enough to take over the body of arobics instructor to get revenge. wow. While previous commentors have metioned the sword flying out of the closet on the string no one has yet metioned the powerful love scene. Where the sexy leading man cop takes off his shirt to reveal a mane of backhair. The fun never ends. Rent this!!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+If you still remember that summer when you had your first kiss, first boy/girlfriend, or first puppy love fling...this film is for you! OK so this movie would and will never win an Oscar BUT as a Dominican I loved it...there are some things in the movie that might just go right over your head if you are not part of the culture...the kids being raised by a grandma who's both mother and father, the youngest son being babied and bathed with a Cafe Bustelo tin (sooo Dominican!), Judy being harassed by the neighborhood men, going to church and lighting a prayer candle...the film's brilliance was in those small details. Granted, it was not a pull out all the works cinematic extravaganza but it wasn't meant to be NOR was it meant to be an educational tool for those wanting to learn about Latin culture ( tip: make new friends instead). More of a bitter-sweet, faux-cumentery, this film kept it real without taking itself too seriously. As in the tradition of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" this was simply one boy's coming of age tale. I recommend it (especialmente si eres Dominicano!) =o)$LABEL$ 1
+As far as I can recall, Balanchine's alterations to Tchaikovsky's score are as follows:1) The final section of the Grossvatertanz (a traditional tune played at the end of a party) is repeated several times to give the children a last dance before their scene is over.2) A violin solo, written for but eliminated from Tchaikovsky's score for The Sleeping Beauty, is interpolated between the end of the party scene and the beginning of the transformation scene. Balanchine chose this music because of its melodic relationship to the music for the growing Christmas tree that occurs shortly thereafter.3) The solo for the Sugar Plum Fairy's cavalier is eliminated.It seems to me the accusation that Balanchine has somehow desecrated Tchaikovsky's great score is misplaced.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say.$LABEL$ 1
+I have become quite fond of Laurence Olivier in the past few weeks, and was thrilled when I discovered this gem. I have always found it wonderful when I run across a film where I do not have to have my finger on the remote control in case nudity rears its ugly head.The Divorce of Lady X is charming till the final scene, and must have been a true delight for viewers back in 1938. I only wish people today could accept and love true humor instead of the horrid trash talk people now call funny.The Divorce of Lady X is well worth anyone's time.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. "Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what "Saving Private Ryan" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a "season to turn off half-way through the broadcast." The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.$LABEL$ 0
+This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).$LABEL$ 0
+On the surface the idea of Omen 4 was good. It's nice to see that the devil child could be a girl. In fact, sometimes, as in the Exorcist, when girls are possessed or are devilry it's very effective. But in Omen 4, it stunk.Delia does not make me think that she could be a devil child, rather she is a child with issues. Issues that maybe only a therapist, rather then a priest could help. She does not look scary or devilish. Rather, she looks sulky and moody.This film had potential and if it was made by the same people who had made the previous three films it could of worked. But it's rather insulting really to make a sequel to one of the most favoured horror trilogies, as a made for TV movie special.On so many levels it lets down. It's cheap looking, the acting is hammish and the effects are typical of a TV drama. The characters do not bring any sympathy, and you do not route for them. I recently re-watched it after someone brought it for me for Christmas, and it has dated appalling.If your thinking of watching this, then I would suggest that you don't. Watch one of the others, or watch the Exorcist, or watch The Good Son. Just don't waste your time on this drivel!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has got to be about one of the worst i have ever seen. The humor was crude, hardly funny and been heard a million times before. The start was noting special and it got worse and worse as it went on. I got about halfway through and couldn't stand to watch any more of it. Luckily I was only watching it on TV so it didn't cost anything, but I seriously recommend you do not waste you time or your money.Nothing in the movie was new. The characters were not at all developed. I actually think it would have been better as a little kids movie in that it was full of stupid unrealistic "funny" events occurring ... thats like what happens in home alone or something. Not to imply home alone was in any way as terrible as this.$LABEL$ 0
+I gave this movie a 2, and though I consider myself a science fiction fan, I found this movie very difficult to take seriously. It was on AMC one late night, and I'm glad I saw it for free. This movie is probably good for a few laughs, but not much more.The special effects are about average for the time period - not awful, but not great, either. Of course we know more about Mars now than we did back then, but we really can't hold that against this film. The main reason I did not like this movie is because of the story.There were several parts of this movie that I wish would have been explored in a little more detail - the astronaut's injury/condition, the city on Mars, the creature in the lake, etc. Overall, the movie is much like a lengthy episode of the 1960s version of The Outer Limits - complete with a cheesy ending.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:********************************************************************SPOILER DETAILS********************************************************************Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the "male" lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on.$LABEL$ 0
+Flavia(Florinda Bolkan of "Don't Torture a Duckling" fame)is locked away in a convent of carnal desires by her father.Tired of all of the sadism she sees around her(rape of a young woman in a pigsty,sexual cravings,horse castration)Flavia decides to run from the convent with her Jewish friend from the outside,Abraham.The two don't get very far before they are captured and then brought back to be tortured and forced to repent.After punishment she joins up with a band of Muslims called the Tarantulas,who had invaded the convent prior and leads a crusade that turns into nothing short of a bloody battle behind the convent walls."Flavia the Heretic" is a well-directed and fairly notorious piece of Italian nunsploitation.The film is slightly gruesome and sleazy at times.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.Overall,"Flavia the Heretic" is a genuinely moving and intelligent movie with plenty of nudity and gore.You can't go wrong with it.8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said " was " in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states " This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam " he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novelMy all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb$LABEL$ 1
+Bob Clampett's 'The Hep Cat' is a distinctly average cartoon only really notable for the fact that it was the first colour Looney Tune (previously Looney Tunes were all black and white while Merrie Melodies were in colour). The tale of a singing, dancing cat's attempts to woo a lady cat and a dog's attempts to catch the cat, 'The Hep Cat' lacks the trademark energy and pace of most Clampett shorts. To be fair, Clampett doesn't have a great deal to work with. Warren Foster's script is embarrassingly thin and, while he has spun straw into gold with other cartoons, Clampett doesn't manage it with 'The Hep Cat'. It's often said of Clampett that you can't mistake his cartoons for anyone else's and it's generally true but 'The Hep Cat' is an exception. There's flashes of Clampett genius, such as the chase scene in which the cat stops to ask the dog "Hey, are you following me". When the dog confirms that he is, the cat simply says "Oh" and the chase immediately resumes. Unfortunately, there's very little of such brilliance on show here. Knowing who directed it, 'The Hep Cat' is a bitter disappointment. We all have off days and this was clearly one of Clampett's!$LABEL$ 0
+I think this film version of NORTHANGER ABBEY is actually quite good. It certainly is amusing. Well, it's not a masterpiece as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ('95) but there's very good stuff in it.. especially the City of Bath setting!!! ..The Royal Crescent, the Roman Baths, the fascinating Georgian atmosphere.. That is excellent. If you are a Bath fan like myself, you'll love watching this film! The performances may sound a bit too "melodramatic" but I've got the impression that this film, like the novel itself, is deliberately making fun of the popular tales of romance and terror and of the society of the period. The only drawback is probably the female lead as I personally have another idea of Catherine Morland's physical appearance. The music is also a bit "unusual".. but I strangely find it acceptable despite it's got nothing to do with the historical period portrayed. I'm wondering what would dear old Jane think...:)$LABEL$ 1
+Hercules' son gets severely wounded during a lion hunt that goes awry. Hercules (a solid and engaging performance by the beefy Reg Park) has to venture into an eerie and dangerous alternate dimension ruled by the evil and vengeful Gia the Earth Goddess (a deliciously wicked portrayal by Gia Sandri) and battle various monsters in order to save his son's soul. Meanwhile, Gia's equally nasty son Antaius (a perfectly hateful turn by Giovanni Cianfriglia) poses as Hercules and takes over an entire city as a cruel and ruthless tyrant. Director Maurizo Lucidi relates the engrossing story at a steady pace and maintains a serious tone throughout. This film begins a little slow, but really starts cooking once Hercules enters the misty and perilous subterranean spirit world: Rousing highlights include Hercules grappling with a humanoid lizard beast, Hercules climbing a giant gnarled tree, and Hercules being attacked by a bunch of creepy rotting zombies. Better still, the bizarre spirit world just reeks of spooky atmosphere (gotta love that persistent thick swirling fog!). The strenuous rough'n'tumble mano-a-mano major physical confrontation between Hercules and Antaius likewise totally rocks. Of course, we also get a big mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption as well. Allvaro Mancori's crisp widescreen cinematography gives the movie an impressively expansive sense of scope. Ugo Filippini's robust, rousing score has a nifty majestic sweep to it. Okay, so this flick is an obvious cheapo cute'n'paste job that uses copious footage from both "Hercules in the Haunted World" and "Hercules and the Captive Women," but it's still an extremely lively and entertaining romp all the same.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved the first movie, the second one was okay, disappointed John Cleese wasn't jean bob anymore as hes my favorite character. But the third one...what happened to the animation??? it looks low budget like a sat morning cartoon! except for the flashback which was taken from the first movie. They really should have stopped after number 2, this just makes the rest look bad!! Derek's voice has changed but its not as recognizable as jean bob..Rogers also looks very strange. I also don't understand where Rothbart came from. I thought he died! This movie made me want to turn it off, as much as i love the first one, i was very disappointed with this installment. They will never beat the original!:)$LABEL$ 0
+I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Rubyin Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good moviesalso, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the BEST movies I have seen in a very long time. Bechard has a way of looking at things that is completely unique and this movie does not disappoint.This movie has you guessing throughout, and with the seemingly taboo topics addressed it keeps you glued to the screen. There are no bad guys or good guys, Bechard makes sure of that. The characters are so perfectly complex you feel for each of them, you care about what they have been through.Bechard's use an attention to details is unmatched in this world of "FAST FOOD MOVIES" and while some of the topics may make some uncomfortable - you love the feeling it gives you.I have heard it said too often that there are no NEW stories to tell. Thank you Gorman Bechard for proving that false.Run, don't walk, to see this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+this film was probably the best "scary film" i've seen in years. chilling might be a more accurate description. the ending was unexpected and therefore took me by surprise. if it has any flaw it would be the overuse of the whole meaning of life concept. since noone truly knows that answer, you definitely sail into murky waters when you incorporate that concept into a movie. put that aside and the movie is quite enjoyable. carly pope should emerge as one of the next bright young stars in the film industry. the rest of the cast were somewhat shaky, however since the focus was on sara novak (carly pope), her performance anchored the movie. the, at times poor acting abilities of her costars were not an issue since it was not their performances that fuelled this movie. (thankfully). watch this movie you should enjoy it.t$LABEL$ 1
+Dooley and his canine partner, Jerry Lee are together again in this 2nd sequel (?!!?) I sincerely had no clue that they made one sequel let alone two. And for a film that was only slight better than "Turner & Hooch"? This time after Dooley retires, he has to mate his dog (with other dogs, people) and wait around for Jerry Lee to poo. Real classy stuff. I mean come on now. The original had at least a few good laugh. This one has nary a one. Jim Belushi just looks old and worn out. Both Belushi brothers were great in the '80's. If John hadn't died, would he be so bad today like his brother? That thought makes me sad for some reason.My Grade: D- Where i saw it: USA network$LABEL$ 0
+Jenny Lewis plays an awkward girl called Jade. She smokes and drinks. She doesn't have a lot of friends and she has a nagging mother(Beverly D'Angelo). Jade finds herself growing closer to her mom's boyfriend Billy(Rob Estes), maybe she is attracted to him. Of course, I don't need to tell you what happens after that. This is probably my favorite TV movie. This movie shows that sometimes everyone is to blame. This movie also has the best acting that I have seen in TV movies. Beverly D'Angelo does a really nice job as a sweet and loving but neglectful and blind mother. She couldn't see what was going on under her own roof. Rob Estes is at his best here as the sleazeball. Jenny Lewis is the standout. She seems to be exactly like her character.Everyone seems to love this movie!$LABEL$ 1
+I love this movie. It is the first film Master P have ever done. It is based on the story of his life. It is low-budget, but it is very good. It shows how Master p grew up in projects in New Orleans.Not only did Master P start in this movie, he also was the writer and director with Moon Jones. The DVD also has The No Limit ice cream party on it. This movie shows how Master P goes from bad too good and how he had to deal with the things around him. It also has many of The No Limit Records roster in this film. You should buy or rent this film.It is a great movie to watch is you like rap, or is a Master P fan. I will not spoil this movie for you. Go get this movie as fast as you can and watch it. You will like it.$LABEL$ 1
+To make a film straddling the prequels and the "real" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent! No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls$LABEL$ 0
+I waited a long time to finally see what I thought was going to be a fun caper flick and was shocked to discover shoddy direction, awkward dialogue, a lackluster pace, unmotivated slapstick gags and an overall coarseness that permeated the film throughout. Just not funny! The sets looked cheap, the costumes by the usually excellent Donfeld are garish and distracting. Even the title song is annoying. The whole children's book characters doesn't come close to representing the married couple whose life is turned upside down when he loses his job. For a film that seems to aim a dart at the unfairness of welfare and unemployment systems, the filmmakers have no problem in being unfair themselves, allowing Hispanic, black and gay stereotypes played at such a cruel level. The look of the film resembles any episode of Love American Style. This is not a compliment. Tacky seventies fashions abound in this world of white collar theft that only lends an air of implausibility to every situation. Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people. If you want a better caper film, you're better off with The Hot Rock with George Segal and Robert Redford or What's Up Doc with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand. Now that's funny!$LABEL$ 0
+A very disappointing film from Oliver Stone which, unlike his recent epic "J.F.K.", fails to stimulate any sort of real emotion. "Talk Radio" is about talk-back host 'Barry Champlain', a very loud, opinionated man who manages to upset a lot of people and yet still draw an audience, most of whom mind you just want to ring up and abuse him. His boss in the movie (Alec Baldwin) sums up his character very well by saying he's just a shoe salesman with a big mouth. And as Barry (Eric Bogosian) gets death threat upon death threat, the final outcome is almost inevitable.This is the sort of movie that usually has something very powerful to say. However, "Talk Radio" fails to make a serious comment and remains a frustrating, pointless film.Thursday, September 17, 1992 - Video$LABEL$ 0
+Being 15 myself I enjoyed this flick thouroughly!! I related to the character Ann August more than most would. My Mother isnt AS eccentric as Adele, but the feelings of lonliness is the same. This movie is perfect in the ating aspects, and Natalie's, and Susan's performances are so linked together that it's the best onscreen dual i have seen in years. Their chemistry brings the characters to life, they become real people! I would recommend this flick to anyone who is hoping to get away. Because there is genually alot of people out there who would wish to be "Anywhere But Here" including me! and if you can, see this movie with your best friend or your mother. Its the tears that blend everyone around you together more!!$LABEL$ 1
+One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy$LABEL$ 1
+OK, not possibly, honestly the worst movie i've ever seen.this made absolutely no sense, there was no plot, no characterization, no acting, just nothing.here's what i thought when i first saw it may 28th, 2003 **caution, this is a spoiler alert. it's also alot of me complaining about how bad the movie is::ok so the movie begins and the characters are introduced, but there is no character explanation. as far as i knew the main character was new to this school, but apparently not. also it appeared that he lived by himself... then that he was a foster kid... then that his mother was a raging alcoholic who lived with him still. also all his friends apparently had no parents and lived by themselves.now we come to a main plot point, this insane guy has broken out of the insane asylum and is running rampant. now our main character is obsessed with this guy and focus' intently on him for the contingency of the movie. i think i must have missed a main plot element here, there was no REASON for the main character to get hooked. even if that's the point, having no reason, why do all his friends, who are skeptical like 5 minutes before, suddenly follow him and do what he wants.so the movie continues on, and it gets all right. they're running havoc on the school, blah blah blah. but wait a minute... suddenly everyone knows that the main character is running the 'show' here. wait a second, didn't the insane guy specifically tell the main character NOT to do that? it was supposed to be anynomous.ah another important plot element has been skipped over... the insane guy was supposed to not be insane... everyone said he wasn't insane. but as the story goes on, he is VERY CLEARLY OUT OF HIS MIND. but i thought the news people said he wasn't... hm...now the movie comes to a close. THAT WAS THE CLOSE? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? not only did the ending not answer any questions about the main character, it didn't answer any questions about the insane guy. are these people in the same situation? if yes, then there are some very basic story lines that do not tend to this. if no then what is the point in saying "that's you in two weeks."??*end of the thing...*that's what i thought then. that is pretty much what i still think now. it's 6 months down the line, and if i can get it for free, i might give it another chance, but i doubt it. i highly doubt it.$LABEL$ 0
+I have been an avid chipmunk fan since the late 70's - early 80's. When this movie came out, it was a must to see it. And after seeing it, I went right over and bought it! The movie is great, I love the animated action it brings, and the music is great (yes, I bought the soundtrack on CD...) A recommended video for everyone to watch and enjoy!$LABEL$ 1
+Big S isn't playing with taboos or forcing an agenda like, say Mencia or Chapelle (though I like them both). She states the obvious in subtle, near subliminal remarks. Her show won't change the World, nor is it meant to. But, along with the hilarious Brian Posehn and Paget Brewster's ex-boyfriend Jay Johnston of "Mr. Show" fame, this is one mean show with an appetite for destruction! My side's were thoroughly wrecked by the first episode. Look, I love this woman and like her famed boyfriend, Jimmy Kimmel, she just delivers the lines and lets the viewer run- with-it. The best kind of comedy around. Spoofing anything and anyone, like "Mary Poppins" in the second episode when she sings to the fake birds on to quick hitting commentary on society and college aged existential nonsense. This one is highly recommended, but only for those who still have a funny bone (and didn't lose it in their most recent lippo-suction treatment or boob job).$LABEL$ 1
+Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles / Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie was TERRIBLE!!! Easily the worst movie I have seen in the past few years. One of those movies I will be able to tell people for the next three years that it was the worst movie I can think of. Thank you for giving me an answer to that burning question "What is the worst movie you have seen?" Answer: Celestine Prophecy. Trust me...I read the book, enjoyed the message and was excited to see the movie, but then, they treated the audience like we are r*tarded. There is no story and the story that is there is crippled by too much magic and coincidence. It is too bad they have to spell out the nine prophecies and can't simply weave them into a story that is entertaining to follow. They didn't spend any time on character development and it was easy to not care if any character died. It was embarrassing to be one of the few people who stuck around until the end of this incredibly boring movie. The book is pretty boring too but I enjoyed the parallels that could be seen in everyday life while you read the book. The film does not offer the same opportunity and I would suggest not seeing it if you want to continue to hold the words of the book close to your heart. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. Trust me.$LABEL$ 0
+Words fail me. This film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight I really wish I hadn't done it. Although I attempted to sit through it until the end credits I have to admit I couldn't last for more than hour, so my opinion could be unfair. However, this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film-making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious.Please do not watch any part of this film.$LABEL$ 0
+We've all see the countless previews and trailers. If you enjoyed Knoxville getting flipped by the Bull you'll take great carnal pleasure in the opening "act". I must caution the masses however, I considered taking my (under-18) son with me but am relieved I did not. This compilation of obnoxious skits contains a few that albeit as hilarious as they may seem to the adult community, a few are not for the immature. These guys must get paid a great ransom to tolerate some of the devious stunts, sometimes played at their expense. In particular, Bam Margera and Ehren McGhehey are slighted by the group in a few particular stunts. Enjoy$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was great and everything but, there were a lot of mistakes in the "soccer" scenes, i wonder if any of the guys who were working on the movie have ever seen a soccer match before..? first of all, i don't understand how she wanted to try for the boys team? in soccer boys and girls cant play in the same team and these are the FIFA rules. And don't get me started on who when they found out that she was actually a girl they let her continue to play...!! second of all, players cant paint their faces with colours and play like that, again FIFA rules not mine.and don't get me started on the way they scored goals its was ridiculous completely unrealistic. and all the players seemed like they didn't know Jack about soccer.and when duke was training Viola why did they only concentrate on shooting what happened to passing and dribbling. or was shooting her only problem?! and why the hell were all the posters on the wall in their room were for players from Chelse ?! don't they like any other players from any other teams.? it was like this was the only team they know...! but other than that the movie was good and i enjoyed the rest of it, just the training and the game scenes were unrealistic for me. they really should have consulted some one a bout them...!$LABEL$ 1
+I caught the first screening of Driving Lessons at the Tribeca Film Festival. Rupert Grint shows he can act past Harry Potter. Laura Linney is amazing as the overbearing mother. Julie Walters is hilarious as Dame Evie Walton, with a mouth worse than a sailor. I hope that this film is picked up by an American distributor so that everyone can see it. This film is not only about Driving Lessons, but life lessons. Ben (Rupert Grint) is torn between wanting to obey his overbearing mother and vicar father and wanting to live his own life. It's an amazing film, from an amazing director whose taken his own life and put it on the screen for everyone to see, and everyone who can, should.$LABEL$ 1
+I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan.$LABEL$ 1
+If you are a bit masochistic and like to waste some time you should try this one. I wasted enough time myself watching it, so I will waste no more explaining why it is so awful. Be warned!!! Oh, I see that I have to fill 10 lines or more. Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit. The Cavern is one of those. I didn't have high expectations about this one but the acting is so bad and the production so poor that I'm seriously thinking of asking for a refund. Phewww ... one more line about a useless movie ... Oh, I'm done.$LABEL$ 0
+The worst movie I've seen in a long time. This whole thing rings false, and the Billy Crudup character especially so. The potential for a good story is there, but this movie never comes close to delivering. Every plot element just drifts away.$LABEL$ 0
+This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in "real life relationship" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat. Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting.$LABEL$ 1
+My husband received DVD of OBWAT for Christmas and it was the best gift we received! We watch it every time we need to laugh and so far we have viewed it 12 times!The scenery in this movie is beautiful and the music is outstanding!We also purchased the soundtrack and we play it in our vehicles and at home when ever we need a pick me up and that too is daily!If anyone needs a suggestion for a good gift for movie lovers this movie is it!The characters are hilarious , charming , and their facial expressions are too funny to describe!I have always been a fan of George Clooney but now I am also a fan of Tim Blake Nelson(Delmar ) and John Turturro (Pete)and am now looking for them in other movies! You gotta see this movie!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Ah, McBain… The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always – to me personally, at least – remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse … McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it. Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass. Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and – last but not least – a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms".$LABEL$ 1
+I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.Totally failure.$LABEL$ 0
+I strongly disagree with "ctomvelu" regarding Jim Belushi's talent. I happen to like Belushi very much. Admittedly, I was skeptical when he first appeared on the scene, because I was such a HUGE fan of his late brother John. But Jim has an on-screen charm that has gotten him very far -- and he has developed it well over the years.Curly Sue is one of his earlier films -- his weight is a giveaway (ain't that true for most of us?) -- and I like the film. Yes, it is touching and heartwarming, so if you're into car chases, explosions and gratuitous sex, then you might want to pass on this one -- it is a warm film of three lost soles who find each other. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the three aforementioned keys to a successful film, but I also like a nice, solid tale like this one.And although Belushi and Kelly Lynch deliver excellent performances, the real star of this film is Alisan Porter -- who is absolutely adorable.I don't know what happened to her career, but whoever is responsible for dropping the ball (agent? parents? herself?) should be shot. You couldn't ask for a more perfect introduction to fame than this film, and yet nothing of note has been heard from her since.Another sad Hollywood story ...$LABEL$ 1
+I saw the capsule comment said "great acting." In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer." I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.$LABEL$ 0
+As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be "fruity." This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.$LABEL$ 0
+Anyone who enjoys the Lynchian weirdness of Twin Peaks, or any fan of HP Lovecraft who knows that the most frightening things are the familiar things, will really enjoy this film. Don't watch it as a horror film in the "traditional" western sense, but more like a Grimm's fairy tale. It is gory and definitely for 16+, but once you start watching it, you too will find yourself drawn into the vortex. Definitely one of those movies that hangs with you for a few days after watching (I'll never look at my snails the same way again!)$LABEL$ 1
+We were waiting in line to see The Good Girl, an excellent movie starring Jennifer Aniston, when some lady came up with this cheapo mock twenty dollar bill advertising MANNA FROM HEAVEN. "Come see this movie!" she said. "You'll love it!"She then introduced us to the director of the film. Now, this should have been our first clue. I mean, in how many cinematic situations do you have the director of the film standing out in the lobby begging people to see it? "Is this a Christian film?" I asked, not really caring one way or the other. I love Jesus. No shame in that. "No!" she said defensively. What a load of crap.This movie is BAD. So bad. And it's not only because of the obvious Christian agenda, but because of the terrible dialogue, acting that alternates between wooden and overexaggerated, and the obvious lack of an editor. The film is way too long. Had it been an hour and a half, then maybe (just maybe) I wouldn't have had to visit the suicide prevention center after seeing the movie.Actually, I lie. See, after an hour of this garbage we snuck into SWIMFAN. At least with SWIMFAN we know it's garbage before going in to see the movie. We know to brace ourselves. And SWIMFAN has hot half-naked people. The only thing half-naked in this film is the desperation of the stars involved whose obvious lack of script offers is anything but hidden. And the actress who plaid the nun? It's called a personality. Get one.The people shamelessly begging for ticket sales in the lobby told me that if I liked MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, then I would *love* (their emphasis, not mine) MANNA FROM HEAVEN. Right. More like, "If you like GLITTER, you'll love MANNA FROM HEAVEN." And Mariah could actually outperform any of the clowns from this flick. If that's not an insult, then I don't know what is.I've railed enough. Go see indie films, but don't see the bad ones. This is definitely one of the bad ones. MANNA FROM HEAVEN is in need of some divine intervention.$LABEL$ 0
+Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying "Back Story" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed "is not a nice person"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a "theatrical release" version and a "restored" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the "restored" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer$LABEL$ 0
+Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy.After his great fist movie called El fondo del mar and the spectacular TV pro-gramme Los simuladores,Damian Szifron made another great work.Tiempo de valientes looks,for moments,a movie made in Hollywood.Diego Peretti and Luis Luque are two great actors and here,they have great performances.The movie is very fun and funny and it has superb moments.Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy that I totally recommend if you wanna have a great time.And I have to congrats Szifron for all the talent he has.Rating:9$LABEL$ 1
+In the old commercial for blank audio cassettes, the tag line was "is it real or is it Memorex?" The same might be said for the events in this episode - a compilation and remix of "The Cage," the first pilot of Star Trek. Mr. Spock has cleverly commandeered the ship to take it to the forbidden planet Talos IV in order to allow Capt. Christopher Pike, his first captain who has been burned and paralyzed, to return there. Why the finagling? Because to have any contact at all with Talos IV invites a death sentence. Why this is so is never explained - that bothered me tremendously - but, if nothing else, it adds to the story. After he has gotten the ship to travel to Talos IV, Mr. Spock turns himself in to Dr. McCoy (the senior-most officer present; Capt. Kirk was off the ship) for arrest and says, "The charge is mutiny, Dr.; I never received orders to take over the ship." What follows is a court martial in which - thanks to the Talosians - we learn why it was so important (besides the obvious paralysis) for Capt. Pike to get to Talos IV even at risk of Mr. Spock's death. The illusions the Talosians create, the background music and the entire storyline are fantastic. And Meg Wyllie as The Keeper (the head Talosian) is wonderful. Call me sexist but it never occurred to me to have a woman in that role but she was perfect! The Talosians, having given up almost all physical activity and becoming almost completely reliant upon the power of illusion, are also unisex; you can't really tell if they're male or female and it really doesn't matter. This episode, more than almost any other in the series, makes me hope and pray there are other worlds out there and that there are civilizations that are so far advanced! What a neat thing if this were so! This is one of my favorite episodes and, no matter how many times I've seen it (I even have it on video), it never fails to fascinate me. Meg Wyllie LOOKS like an alien and I do NOT mean that unkindly.$LABEL$ 1
+In 1961, this series was shown on local TV here in southern California. I and many others have been petering BBC for tape or DVD ever since. Now all of a sudden, here it is on Amazon. I pre-ordered in January and now here on March 30 it arrived. It was a long wait (48 years). Was it worth it? So far I have just watched Richard II (I've only had the DVD since 2 o'clock) and I can truly say YEA!!! totally worth the wait. The acting, direction, and production are superb and even better than I remember. The production is in B & W but somehow it fits. The video is clear and very good, the sound is flawless. Further proof of how timeless Shakespeare truly is.I gave this 10 stars even though I have only seen 1 of the 8 plays. I am sure that when I have seen them all I will change my rating to at least a 12.It's currently in stock at Amazon (US region 1) at a reasonable price.I'd better stop now so I can get back to watching. Next up is Henry the IV, part 1 of which is my all time favorite Shakespeare play.$LABEL$ 1
+With the death of her infirmed husband, May, an older woman faces a future in an urban world that views her as invisible, dead from the neck down, and unwelcome in the pseudo- sophisticated yuppie homes of her son, Bobby and his shallow wife, Helen, and Paula, a self- absorbed, clinging, and minimally talented daughter. The central family is anything but warm, supportive, and understanding of her new and tragic stage in life with the death of her husband. The Mother is a quiet character study that points up how in some societies, the elder parent is both unwelcome and a burden to grown children whose careers and status seeking overshadow all else. As May comes to realize the world is still important to her, the lonely widow finds her libido reawakened and alive with her daughter's boyfriend, a carpenter and rough sort. May embarks on an uninhibited sexual affair with Darren whose character is sympathetic to her at first, but his flawed nature is quickly revealed through the pressures of the women who surround him.This is the kind of role Hollywood actresses of a certain age whine is never written for them, but would never appear in because the film's frankness, overt sexuality, unglamorous wardrobe, little makeup, and social commentary on the vapidness of the very society most film industry women are enchrenched. The performance by the lead actress, Anne Reid ranges from quiet to giddy and her interpretation blossoms on screen from the drab widow to a sexually alive and freed middle age woman without face-lift, hair extensions, and liposuction. She bares more than her soul for the screen.Daniel Craig is the enabling handyman, Derrek who beds both mother and daughter. He turns in another stellar performance that is at first sympathetic to the widow's situation, but in the end is without redemption as his true nature unfold and he is literally the rooster in a hen-house. His aimless character's inability to say no to the ex-wife, boring girlfriend, and her mother is blamed as the root of his ineffectual existence. While good with his hands at building a conservatory, he is unable to construct meaning in his life.One of the best films from Britain in years, it is simply adult in its storyline. The Mother is the rare kind of film that is perhaps too honest for American audiences to tolerate having no car chase, no bling, no rap soundtrack to drown out the cretin performances by TV starlets and buff studmuffins. The Mother reflects how the aging baby boomers are now disposable people that offspring are willing to overlook, send to the retirement home, and get out of the way. May doesn't know what to do as she is made alive by Darren, isn't willing to go to the old folks home, and finds her kids are more conservative than she ever was at their age.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is so aggrivating. The main character looks like he's 35 and I've seen scrawny beanpoles with more balls than this guy. The plot twists are so predictable its not even worth watching for the humor factor.Also some of the worst dialogue I've heard in 3 years, "lets go find a small animal to torture".Ugh.....I can't even continue, don't watch this pile of garbage, it was made in 8 days.The one highlight is the drunk dude calling the main character a faggot for drawing pictures.2 out of 10, unwatchable$LABEL$ 0
+Wow... just... wow. There are a lot of reviews on this movie already but I wanted to add some comments of my own. I agree with most reviewers who have said this movie has terrible acting, writing, and directing - whoo boy does it ever. However, I think there is some other problems here.1. Why is Christian belief and the allowance for extraterrestrial life mutually exclusive? The film acts as though you just can't be a Christian and also allow for the possibility? Why? They ever-so-briefly touch on this in the film (i.e. "The Bible doesn't say there is aliens." "Well, the Bible doesn't say there isn't.), but the actual rebuttal is never answered. The Bible really doesn't say there isn't. So how about dealing with the question instead of dismissing it out of hand? Or better yet, acknowledge that this is an infinite universe we live in and if we believe in an infinite God there is the possibility that he made some other life somewhere and has his own plans for them.2. How come the ONLY two explanations for the abductions that are valid are demons and hoax? What about sleep paralysis and night terrors which have been linked to abduction experiences? What if it's something else entirely? Too bad the film makers already have their minds made up.3. The film makers claim that all who have had abduction experiences have had ties to the occult. That's a pretty big claim to make without any factual evidence to present. I'm not necessarily arguing that they don't, but if you're going to say something so asinine you'd better have the facts to back it up.4. Why does the other reporter (not the Greasy Haired Blonde Guy, the other one) always have his hands in his pockets? It's hard to take someone seriously when they're constantly playing pocket pool.I WISH this had been an exploration of Christian faith and UFO phenomena, but unfortunately the film makers were too concerned with their "Faith Message" to care much about make a thought provoking movie. As a Christian myself, this saddens me.$LABEL$ 0
+"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" consists mostly of rambling, poorly assembled footage in search of a movie. The plot makes no sense, and the various characters drop in and out of the picture with no explanation at all. Watching this silly spoof, you get the feeling than so many other comments have captured so accurately: that it's easy to make a cheap, low-quality film and then use the "parody" angle as an excuse for its cheapness and low quality (in one scene, female swimmers are terrified of tomatoes that are floating near them; how far can "suspension of disbelief" go - even in a parody?). The title song is great, though. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+As I've said in the title of this review, It pains me to say this, but "hitch" reaches the zenith of what Hollywood Romantic Comedies can ever hope to aspire to. I've been a critic of both the Genre and it's namesake for as long as I can remember myself, but on an almost tragic note, "Hitch" has caused me to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of two hours of my life with a ridiculous smile plastered across my face.This movie may be misogynistic and presumptuous at times but it nonetheless possesses a certain humor about it whose subtlety may only be described as British. This is a wonderful attempt by Hollywood to make (Or remake as the case may be...) a film which appeals to all of our wishes for a Romantic Comedy which can make us both think and laugh simultaneously. I grudgingly and most evasively give this movie a 9 out of 10... Something you shall hardly see me do for a Romantic Comedy in the near future, or so at least, I hope.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a very strange product from Hollywood. Apparently it didn't test well because actors who have footage in the credits have been edited completely out of the movie, which means a hasty cut job was done on it. It feels like it was wrestled out of the usually competent Demme's hands, and just thrown away. On the other and it is so totally lacking in substance that maybe nothing could save it. It has no real center, either narratively or time wise. Although it says the running time is 92 minutes, I seem to recall it ending abruptly, around the 80 minute mark. It's over before it even gets going. It's pretty much laugh free.The merits of the "Matthew Modine picture" were as elusive then as the Luke Wilson picture is now.$LABEL$ 0
+It was extremely low budget(it some scenes it looks like they recorded with a home video recorder). However it does have a good plot line, and its easy to follow. 8 years after shooting her sexually abusive step father Amanda is released from the psychiatric ward, with the help of her doctor who she is secretly having an affair with. The doctor ends up renting her a house and buying her a car. But within the first 20 minutes of the movie Amanda kills him and buries him in her backyard. Then she see's her neighbor Richard sets eyes on him and stops at nothing until she has him. She acts innocent but after another neighbor Buzz finds out that Amanda killed that doctor and attempted to kill Richards wife Laurie (this is after Amanda and him get it on in the hot tub). Then she stops acting so Innocent and kills Buzz and later on attempts to kill Richard whom she supposedly loves and cares for. And you'll have to rent the movie to find out if Amanda dies or not. Overall good movie, reminds me a lot of my life you know the whole falling for the neighbor and stopping at nothing until you have him part.$LABEL$ 1
+I love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+Opera (the U.S. title is terror at the opera) is somewhat of a letdown after some of Dario's other movies like Phenomena, Tenebre, and Suspiria. (i still can't find Inferno anywhere.) it's one of those movies that has a great first half but midway through it's like someone started slowly letting the air out of the screenplay and logic.the basic plot involves a beautiful opera singer who is being stalked by a deranged obsessed fan. this killer begins killing people close to her in a most unique fashion. he binds and gags her and tape tiny sharp pins under her eyelids so if she tries to close her eyes she'll gouge out her eyes. this forces her to watch while the killer murders her acquaintances in typically brutal and gory Argento fashion.unfortunately, about midway through the film becomes sluggish and illogical. (this is especially directed towards the killer's motivations. i still haven't completely figured out why he's such a nut.) the ending especially come out of left field in the worst possible sense.but, for about the first hour or so this is some of Dario's best filmmaking and the camera work is breathtaking. too bad it couldn't maintain it through to the end.rating:7$LABEL$ 1
+After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.$LABEL$ 0
+Dolemite is, for me, an object of my deepest affection. It's got everything: a gang of karate-fighting prostitutes, Dolemite punching his fist through Willie Green's (director Martin) stomach, high pumps and 100 gallon dalmation-print hats. Moore's unique comedy raps, actually toasts, are close to the roots of hip hop. No wonder Dr. Dre mentioned "Dolemite" 3 times on his classic album "The Chronic." Add the best list of characters to ever grace a movie, like the horny preacher, the hamburger pimp and, of course, "the one who no one knows until it's time." Credit should be given for style to director D'Urville Martin, a fella who probly doesn't get as much attention as he should around film fan circles (I've been looking for a copy of his and Fred Williamsons' movies from the early 70s for years and can't find them).A lot of people are really down on this movie and say it's really bad, and it is true that you can see boom mikes appearing everywhere (look to DP Nicholas Josef Von Sternberg, for whom I think this was a very early effort), there are a lot of things going for this movie. Number one, there is no other movie like it. Number two, you get to see Rudy Ray Moore do a (highly sanitized; everyone who HASN'T seen Moore's outrageous live act will have to use their imaginations) cinematic version of his toasts, plus him living the life of his comic book character superpimp come to life. The action scenes are pretty poor, but the characters' dialogue when they're talking trash more than makes up for it. It's full of strange little details (like the fact that the Hamburger Pimp is wearing a Dolemite T-shirt inside out -- was this intentional or did the guy just pick up whatever shirt was lying on the set and put it on?) that keep you coming back to watch it again and again.At least I have.$LABEL$ 1
+You've got to think along the lines of Last Tango in Paris for this one because the mood and emotion runs along the same lines and maintains the same heights - the difference being that in this exceptional, intense and torrid depiction of love among the ruins of a Dostoyevskyian dispossessed the setting is a gay-subcultural milieu - perhaps even one that is set to vanish in time, and not the equally arresting but heterosexual context of Bertolucci's own film.The last third of this film depicts a passionate love never seen in gay cinema. To talk of pornography or gay self-effacement misses the point and intelligence of this work. This film, though on first impression appears to take us into the familiar & often depicted underworld of gay street-life, then precedes to subvert the rules of this genre by exaggerating it to a super-real degree. The result is a hyper-charged emotional heightening - an exceptional strategy that elevates the drama to one of big universal themes and giant gestures.This film snatches the high ground because of the brilliant performances by it's actors, notably a young Jean Hugues Anglade and the directing. A tour- De -force of cinema. Outstanding in ambition and it's unceasing plummet into the depths of human emotion. As a contribution to gay cinema, this film conquers this difficult ground and makes it it's own triumph.$LABEL$ 1
+I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS. don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!? If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good.$LABEL$ 0
+I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.) The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)$LABEL$ 0
+I really felt the movie was ahead of its time. The one potential daughter-in-law was such a strong, career oriented woman. She knew what she wanted and was diplomatic but firm with the over-bearing mother-in-law to be. The mother's role was played extremely well (you just loved to hate her). Her need to control her son's lives was neurotically evil. If you've ever been in a relationship where you've been judged and found lacking (and everybody involved knew it) this may hit too close to home. It's been years since I saw this movie and I remember thinking that this plot and dialog would work in a 50's or 60's movie. It is difficult to watch because of the mother and sons' dynamic but I would love to watch it again. I keep hoping to find it on one of the old movie channels but so far no luck. Attempts to buy it were also futile (I don't believe it's on tape or DVD).$LABEL$ 1
+My mother took me to this movie at the drive-in when i was around seven years old, which is thirty years ago. She had no idea a family movie would be so violent. My clearest memory was of the boy's father's face of pain as he was stabbed in the stomach and killed. This image haunted me for weeks. I had learned that I lived in a world where a person might stab my father at anytime. How could I stop them? How could my father protect himself? You must realise that this stabbing is not fantasy to a seven-year old. It is as real as witnessing an actual event, and has no place in a child's innocent mind. It is sad that we still do not understand the impact that bringing violence into the lives of our children has both on our children and our society. If only parents would protect their children from images of violence with the same vigor that they protect them from images of nudity and sex.$LABEL$ 0
+All the ingredients of low-brow b-movie cult cinema. Topless (and bottomless) girls, kung-fu kicking chefs, slave traders, evil Germans with mustaches, Cameron Mitchell and sword-wielding zombies.And, of course the breasts of Camille Keaton, who's best known display occurs in the feminist exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave. We also must mention the hooters of jewel Shepard, who play a hooker in the recent film The Cooler.Lots of blood and action with knives and swords and martial arts among topless dancers in a bar, in a whorehouse, and on a boat load of martial artists heading to some zombie island where bad martial artists go to die or something like that.Tops and bottoms come off easily and frequently as travelers are well lubricated thanks to the boat owner.Then disaster strikes as their boat is destroyed and they land on the zombie island where mas monks sacrifice young girls to the dead martial artists to bring them back to life.Just when you thought it had everything, there are piranhas in the water. Yum Yum A big fat German for dinner.Just the thing for your next zombie fest.$LABEL$ 0
+Warner Brothers tampered considerably with American history in "Big Trail" director Raoul Walsh's first-rate western "They Died with Their Boots On," a somewhat inaccurate but wholly exhilarating biography of cavalry officer George Armstrong Custer. The film chronicles Custer from the moment that he arrives at West Point Academy until the Indians massacre him at the Little Big Horn. This is one of Errol Flynn's signature roles and one of Raoul Walsh's greatest epics. Walsh and Flynn teamed in quite often afterward, and "They Died with Their Boots On" reunited Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's romantic interest for the last time. They appeared as a couple in seven previous films. This 140-minute, black & white oater is nothing short of brilliant with dynamic action sequences, humorous romantic scenes, and stern dramatic confrontations between our hero and his adversaries. One of the notorious errors involves Colonel Philip Sheridan who is shown as the commandant at West Point before the Civil War. Indeed, Sheridan was a lieutenant at this point. In fact, the commandant was Robert E. Lee as the earlier Flynn film "Santa Fe Trail" showed. Another historical lapse concerns Lieutenant General Whitfield Scott; Scott was not the commander of Union troops throughout the Civil War. Warner Brothers presented Custer as a drinker (probably because Flynn had a reputation for drinking), but in real life Custer neither drank nor smoked. Nevertheless, these as well as other historical goofs do not detract from a truly splendid film."They Died with Their Boots On" opens with Custer riding into West Point Military Academy arrayed in a fancy dress uniform with an African-American carrying his luggage and tending his dogs. After the sergeant of the guard realizes that he has turned out a honor guard for a future plebe instead of a high-ranking foreign general, the sergeant turns Custer over to a ranking cadet Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy of "City for Conquest") to take charge of him. Sharp plays a practical job on Custer by installing him in the quarters of Major Romulus Taipe (Stanley Ridges of "Task Force") who promptly runs Custer out. Naturally, the volatile Custer attacks Sharp in a public brawl. General Phil Sheridan (John Litel of "The Sons of Katie Elder") is prepared to dismiss Custer from West Point for conduct unbecoming. As it turns out, Sheridan cannot expel Custer because Custer has not enrolled. Once he enrolls, Custer establishes a mediocre academic reputation with alacrity to fight and accumulate demerits galore. When the American Civil War erupts, West Point graduates cadets who have not completed their education and rushes them into combat. One of the last cadets hustled off to war is Custer. Avid as he is to get into the fight, Custer encounters his future wife, Elizabeth 'Libby' Bacon (Olivia de Havilland of "Santa Fe Trail"), and they pledge themselves to each other, despite Mr. Bacon (Gene Lockhart of "Carousel") who detests the sight of Custer. It seems that Bacon ran across Custer at a saloon and insulted one of Custer's friends and our hero reprimanded Bacon.Meanwhile, back in Washington, Custer desperately seeks a transfer to a regiment, but Major Taipe has him cooling his heels. Custer befriends rotund Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (Sidney Greenstreet of "The Maltese Falcon") and they share an appetite for creamed Bermuda onions that becomes one of Custer's characteristics. Not only does Scott see to it that Taipe assigns Custer to the Second Cavalry, but also Custer appropriates Taipe's horse to get to his command. During the Battle of Bull Run, 21 July 1861, Custer disobeys orders from none other than Sharp, strikes his superior officer and holds a bridge so the infantry can cross it. Wounded in the shoulder and sent to the hospital, Custer receives a medal rather than a court-martial. When Confederate General Jeb Stuart threatens the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, Scott is shocked by the chance that the South may triumph. When a brigadier general cannot be found, Scott goads Taipe into promoting the first available officer. A mistake is made and Custer is promoted. Incredulous at first, Custer embraces the moment and cracks Stuart's advance. After the war, Custer idles down and starts boozing it up with the boys at the local saloons. Sharp shows up as a crooked railroad promoter and with his father they try to enlist Custer to serve as the president of their railway so that they can obtain funds. Eventually, Libby intercedes on his behalf with General Sheridan, who was in command of the army, and gets him back on active duty as the commander of the 7th Cavalry. When he takes command, Custer finds the 7th cavalry a drunken lot and is not surprised that Sharp commands the liquor at the fort. Meanwhile, Custer has his first run in with Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn of "The Guns of Navarone") and takes him into custody. Of course, Crazy Horse escapes, becomes Custer's adversary, and they fight.Once Custer has quelled Crazy Horse and the Indians, Sharp with Taipe as a government agent conspire to destroy a peace treaty with the Sioux and other Indian nations. They also see to it that Custer is brought up on charges for striking Taipe in a saloon brawl. On his way to Washington, Custer discovers the perfidy of Sharp and Taipe who have drummed up a gold strike in the sacred Black Hills. Settlers rampage in and the Indians hit the warpath. Custer sacrifices himself and his 600 men at the Little Big Horn in a slam-bang showdown against 6000 redskins. "Stagecoach" lenser Bert Glennon captures both the grit and the glory. The long shot of the 7th Cavalry leaving the fort at dawn is spectacular. As an added premonition of Custer's imminent demise, Libby faints after he leaves their quarters for the Little Big Horn. "They Died with Their Boots On" benefits from a top-notch Max Steiner score that incorporates the regimental tune "Gary Owen."$LABEL$ 1
+Making this short and to the point. This movie was great! I loved it! I actually picked this up at a Hollywood Video for 3 bucks on VHS and watched it about 5 times in the last couple weeks. I'm a big Bogart fan and I just latched onto this movie. I thought the song was funny and now have it as a ring tone on my phone. Robert Sacchi is great and pulls off a good Bogart. His nose is a little big, his voice is a Bogart-Columbo mix, and he does a few things that are awkward but otherwise, he was fantastic and this film was wonderful. No one can be a perfect Bogart but he was great. Remember, Sam Marlow is a fan of Bogart and isn't going to do everything he did. He mentions a lot of other movies and does some things that were never part of the real Bogart's character's. But, it's so funny and hilarious and has a great cast, including some beautiful women. Watch it and have fun!$LABEL$ 1
+My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:"What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.$LABEL$ 0
+Please give this one a miss.Kristy Swanson and the rest of the cast rendered terrible performances. The show is flat, flat, flat.I don't know how Michael Madison could have allowed this one on his plate. He almost seemed to know this wasn't going to work out and his performance was quite lacklustre, so all you Madison fans give this a miss.$LABEL$ 0
+I realize several Ben Stiller movies are out or will be out this year, but perhaps he should insist on quality, not quantity.I was dumbfounded at what the filmmakers thought passed for comedy in "Along Came Polly." Stiller's Reuben is grating, charmless and ranks as one of the worst performances of the year. Stiller's schtick is getting tiresome. He undoubtedly has comic talent, but he needs to either find another schtick or take a break, find some material that is actually funny. Because his movies are going from painfully humorless to excruciatingly bad.There's absolutely no chemistry between Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, which is a shame because she's a good, smart actress with a promising career. As long as she keeps making more movies such as "The Good Girl" (in which she's terrific) and less like "Along Came Polly," she'll have a career of which she could be proud.Aniston tries desperately to overcome the limp material with which she's working, but it's a daunting task for any actress. With the exception of a few moments with Alec Baldwin, as Reuben's boss Stan, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reuben's best friend Sandy, there's nothing funny in this awful film. Other supporting characters, including Debra Messing as Lisa and Hank Azaria as Claude, are annoying. Azaria's accent is not only stupid, it's terribly unfunny.The premise of "Along Came Polly" certainly showed promise. Unfortunately, it needed a writer who could actually turn it into a good comedy, instead of this lame, dull, boring excuse for a comedy.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity. Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in "A Free Soul", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss "Paid", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable. Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure why this film is averaging so low on IMDb when it's absolutely everything you could ever want in a horror film. This is the definition of being a horror film. I consider myself to be a big horror fan and I must say that this house delivers the goods. House of wax Is the story of a group of college kids on their way to a football game whom decide to camp out for the night and have a run in with a local weirdo. Upon waking the next morning they make a gruesome discovery and decide to go into town for a broken car part. The town is creepy and I'm just gonna stop there. Because thats when the truly gruesome mayhem begins. trust me when I say if your looking for a horror film go see this you will love it. It's wonderfully diabolical and inventive with it's killing scenes, the story is interesting and the characters are decently drawn with the actors giving them gobs of personality. Paris Hilton included whom does quite well with her part. the film lies a little on the shallow side but it's so much fun and who cares. This movie should eat up the box office and all horror fans should have part in it. Go see House of Wax the film that features skin being peeled, super glued lips, dead animal carcasses, hot wax sprayed on a still living person, a finger being cut off, a decapitation, a pole through the head and much more. I was lucky enough to witness this film at the Tribeca premiere and all the actors were on hand to promote the film. And boy do they have something to be proud of House of wax is the scariest roller coater ride of the year! 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, before I start my review, I just read every review for 'The Muppet Movie' here and I can't believe that someone could give a negative review to a movie like this. (Fortunately there was only one.) I mean, I can understand how someone may not like 'Star Wars' due to the whole Sci-Fi genre, but to not like a movie starring some of the most lovable puppets in the history of mankind is almost sad. Okay, I will step off my soapbox now and review this movie.'The Muppet Movie' came out when I was seven. All of my friends wanted to see this as their birthday movie, so I think I saw it about four times in the first month in theaters.As a child many things attracted me to this and all the other Muppet movies & TV shows. The singing was probably the main one. Most of the songs in 'The Muppet Movie' are classics. From "Rainbow Connection" to "I'm Going to Go Back There Someday", they're entertaining and thought-provoking.As an adult I see 'The Muppet Movie' in almost a whole different light. Yes, the things that thrilled me about it as a kid are still there, but it's the little jokes and such that are just plain hilarious.I mean, when you think about it, Jim Henson is a sick man. Kermit is a frog and that is in love with a sweet pig that wears purple gloves and could karate chop you into two pieces. Fozzie is a stand-up comedian bear. Gonzo is a 'whatever' that is infatuated with chickens. Then you have two old guys that heckle, a piano-playing dog, a rock band with a maniac drummer, a Swedish chef that you can't understand and a number of other characters that are just plain eccentric.Yet, for these reasons and more, Henson has entertained millions of children and adults, giving us all something special to watch and remember him by. 'The Muppet Movie' will always remain in my heart for many reasons, but I think the biggest one is because it's a movie, unlike a lot of recent children's movies, that I feel comfortable to have my kids watch. Plus, I don't get bored out of my mind with jokes that are dumbed down to my kids' level.It's a great movie that is sure to be remembered forever.$LABEL$ 1
+Justifications for what happened to his movie in terms of distributors and secondary directors, drunks and receptionists doing script rewrites aside, let's just take this movie as it's offered, without extraneous explanations.This movie is God awful. Straight up craptastic. Rather than rehash what may serve as a plot, I'll run a highlight reel of some curious points that made me scratch my head.A class (of 5) take a field trip for a history class to the middle of friggin' nowhere Ireland. These students may be Canadian or American, it's difficult to tell. That it was filmed in a Canadian forest rather than Ireland is rather obvious as well. One student seems to know nothing about history and is basically the "dumb jock" character from a number of kick ass 80's movie, except when he channels Randy from Scream. One character may be Chris Klein's stunt double. He has a girlfriend who probably gets killed, but it's never really established if that is true. One character is sullen and removed from her peers...just...cuz... and then there's a blonde girl. Yay blonde girl.Ireland has a population of 2. They're cousins. Gary, who is clearly the same age or younger than the rest of the cast, is called "sir" more than once. He's very ominous and wears a knit cap. His cousin is a roughed up porn star with the worst Irish accent to befoul film in my lifetime and most likely beyond.Picturesque Ireland features many Canadian forests and swampy areas and 2 ducks which appear more than once in cut scenes.The producers got a discount on volume fake entrails. Good for them.Unbeknownst to me, horribly inbred freaks have access to brand spanking new hunting knives. Perhaps there's some kind of outdoorsman outlet nearby with a blind and deaf clerk working the register.Also unbeknownst to me, if you inbreed for roughly 600 years, as the story leads us to believe happened, you end up being somewhat lumpy, yet amazingly spry and fairly strong. Genetics are a wonderful game of craps.There may or may not be more than one freak in this film. Reference is made to "them" and we see shadows, yet only one odd looking dude is seen ever. And when one odd looking dude is finally killed, apparently all danger is passed. I'm running with my initial assumption that no one thought to outfit a second man in full make up, thus they just used the one. That's what it looks like on screen, anyway.Richard Grieco should be ashamed.Also of note, aside from those shiny new knives, the inbred freaks have access to some posh leather gear, as once Richard Grieco cuts his bonds, there are fresh ones ready for the next sucker who gets tied up...who also then escapes, because the chains give you enough slack to just undo them, making one wonder why they even bother tying anyone up.A dead body in a shack will be maggot-ridden after what I would guess is about 2 hours has passed. Said dead body will also have glasses on, when no characters wore them. Curious.Jenna Jameson appears for no reason from stage left, chats for 2 minutes, vanishes stage left. In the middle of a giant forest. That's not unusual, as Gary can also pop out of nowhere, which is also known as whatever exists in TV land off the screen.Ms. Jameson dies sadly and somehow her clothes vanish like my hopes that this movie wouldn't suck wind.I offer a special nod to the "Breeder" character, the poor girl who has been used by the freaks for months (or maybe years) for breeding purposes. The poor girl who still has eye shadow on and emotes on camera with all the passion and conviction of a stuffed chihuahua.The ending of this movie was clearly tacked on by a drunk or someone with a fierce mental disability that has been cultivated and encouraged with excessive gasoline drinking over the years.Apparently this wasn't just random crap I found on the movie network late at night, apparently people have heard of and even followed this movie through it's production. How sad for you all. I have nothing more to say. May God have mercy on us all.$LABEL$ 0
+I like Peter Sellers, most of the time. I had never seen him portray an upper-class Brit until this movie. He pulls it off pretty well, although you see bits of Inspector Clouseau in the mix. It doesn't get interesting until Goldie Hawn arrives.I never expected the youthful Hawn to deliver such a solid performance. Her timing was great and her expressions were priceless. The way she alternately shoots Sellers lecherous character down and seduces him is beautiful to watch. Verbal sparring like I've seldom seen from a movie of that era.The last thirty minutes of the movie DOES fall flat. It is worth the let down just to see the first sixty. Hawn is nude for a few glorious seconds early on. Enjoy it...$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa!$LABEL$ 1
+I wasn't sure on what to expect from THE BOX. I am a huge fan of Darko, but also saw the mess that became of Southland Tales, whether or not that was a studio botch up, who knows. With the Box I was pleasantly surprised. It was a throwback to classic sci-fi paranoia films that hint at much larger devious happenings, but center on an intimate character base.The slow build, and creepy tension was very effective to the tone and theme of the entire film. Any change in such pacing, would have lead to the typical Hollywood or 'MTV' style, that just wouldn't have served this story's purpose correctly. Everything from the strange looking/acting extras littered throughout, to the low-end score, to the minimal explanation of what exactly was going on, added an entire focused thread of underlying dread, and the shrinking sense of hope for our greedy, though well meaning, lead characters. This was something well thought out and put into motion by Richard Kelly, from the first act through to the end. Richard Matheson's short story, which this was based on, NOT the Twilight Zone ep , which was another take on the story, was one of morality and greed which were still the central elements of THE BOX. Being only some 8 pgs long, expanding it into a feature with substance would have been no easy task, but was done so with style, originality and leaves the viewer with lingering thoughts about the film. Many have and will compare this to DARKO for whether or not it is as profound, but I found it to be an entirely different film, thematically and emotionally. It's tone is completely different, as are the messages and intents of this film. Where Darko left us with questions internally, THE BOX leaves the viewer with more external questions, involving the world around us. Such as, knowing human nature, would the test of the BOX ever come to an end? Decent acting, great creepy visuals, and looming atmosphere add to the slow chilling ride. Its not for everyone, but for those who get where its coming from, its a treat.$LABEL$ 1
+What percentage of movies does a person go to see these days that leave them wondering what happened to their eight to ten dollars? ANSWER: TOO MANY! This movie isn't like that. It is a story about real people that are sometimes a combination of both likable and unlikable.Downside:Not enough character development & some plot lines left twisting in the wind.Upside:Forces viewers to think about the choices they have made for good or bad in their own lives.Well acted by: Scott Cohen, Judd Hirsch, Susan Floyd, Ato Essandoh and Elliot Korte.Contains some good lighthearted humor.$LABEL$ 1
+Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.Stay away from it. I think watch "White Chicks" from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen.$LABEL$ 0
+Made only ten years after the actual events, and set in the Bunker under the Reichstag, Pabst's film is wholly gripping. It reeks of sulfurous death awaiting the perpetrators of world war. Haven't seen this in over three decades, but it remains strong in my visual and emotional memory. The characters seem to be waiting to be walled up in their cave. Searing bit of dialog between two Generals: "Does God exist?" "If He did, we wouldn't." Shame this is not more readily available for exhibition or purchase because it would be interesting to view and compare this film with the documentary about Traudl Junge, "Im Toten Winkel" {aka "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary") and "Downfall" with Bruno Ganz.$LABEL$ 1
+This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the "naked ladies."The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.$LABEL$ 1
+The story is: a turn-of-the-century troupe of actors, along with producers and theatre-owners, have very complicated relationships. A resident playwright has written a psychological drama. He wants to get a good production on stage, but can't unless he convinces a pariticular reviewer to revisit the production, and give a positive review. If his production does not go on, then the troupe will put on The Doll House, recently written by Ibsen. Many different relationships among the principals are explored; none of them interesting. But the involvement of the characters with one another lead to giving the play by the resident playwrght a second shot.This movie is purely an excuse for the director and his friends to get together and put on a movie. The story lines are incoherent to anyone who isn't a buddy of one of the stars. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre after about a half hour is that a fat lady was resting a full meal atop her stomach at the end of my row.$LABEL$ 0
+As a cartoon, the Spytroops Movie was pretty bad. It is only 44 minutes long, yet several battles occur culminating with the destruction of the COBRA headquarters. One downer was the very beginning of the movie. An animated battle that was better than the rest of the movie turns out to have been some kind of battle simulation. That right there was a major turn-off and made the rest of the movie lack credibility. Then there was the issue of Shipwreck tied up along with his parrot, and tossed into some room where nobody had checked for several days. Whatever happened to surveillance cameras?The COBRA base only had a handful of characters, and the rest were BAT robots. Aside from a lot of corridors the COBRA base did not seem to have any weapons, tanks, trucks, or any other equipment. Then there was the silly notion that 100 complex androids could be created overnight. The plot was silly even if this was intended for small children. Spongebob, Powerpuff Girls, and even Barney The Dinosaur give more attention to their plots.The characters were not bad, except that I could never understand anything Destro was saying, and the Cobra Commander was silly and not much of a villain. In fact, except for Storm Shadow and Xartan, the rest of the COBRA characters were comical and hardly impressive. The GI Joe characters were pretty good. Scarlett, Agent Faces, Road Block and Snake Eyes were my favorites here. Shipwreck and Beach Head were the worst. Shipwreck is written as a goof-ball and Beach Head sounded like some 1990s surfer dude. I guess the writer, Larry Hama was trying to make a character that appealed to teenagers, but he was a decade off the mark. Just listening to Beach Head's Spicoli surfer-talk (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) I was wondering if the new GI Joes were going to smoke a dube before the big mission.The CGI was pretty good, except that Cobra Commander had a jerking spastic walk, and the vehicles did not look very realistic at all. The flying tank and the explosions were not very impressive. Old style animation would have been much better than this. Since Hasbro reportedly likes to do things cheap, they got what they paid for. I had trouble watching the whole thing, it was just boring and lacked any soul or GI Joe spirit. Even the old GI Joe commercials would have been better. In fact, the DVD included extras such as four or five current commercials for GI Joe Spy Troops, and those commercials were much more entertaining than the movie. The commercials had more kid-oriented fun and spirit. The commercials were lively, while the movie was dull.$LABEL$ 0
+Apparently a B movie ...B must stand for Better acting and a Better message than we get in big budget "A" pictures today. Modern-day movies aimed at young women, surely aren't designed to encourage depth of character over shallow self-serving behavior... or increase the self-esteem of young girls who don't conform to "feminine" standards. (After all, criticizing the fake and flashy, like this movie does, ain't gonna help sell more products that depend on girls *not* being satisfied with their natural attributes or inner beauty.) Laraine Day is lovable as a mechanically inclined tomboy who "bounds" into rooms and confesses to an inability to flirt. She bonds with Robert Cummings due to similar interests, a shared sense of humour, and her honesty, loyalty and good friendship, which he gradually comes to value over the superficial "charms" of her selfish glamour-girl sister (who only brings out his own selfish, reckless playboy tendencies).Although Laraine is outwardly beautiful as well, it's refreshing to see inner beauty valued more, and the depiction of true friendship leading to the most fulfilling romantic relationship. I wish young girls (and guys) were getting this kind of down-to-earth message today.Maybe if Hollywood returns to making "B" movies again, with modest budgets, and tries to be content with modest profits... what am I saying? Sacrificing the blockbuster mentality to create something sincere on a smaller-scale, would be like expecting a guy to give up the shallow sexpot for a sweet girl who really cares about him. That's crazy talk.Please, somebody invent a time machine already! I belong in 1940.I'd rate this movie higher, but the ending is a bit too abrupt, and perhaps lacked sufficient indication of Robert Cummings' change of heart. (I like the fact that B movies are short & snappy, not bloated & self-indulgent, but this one might've needed more than 70 minutes.) Also found it somewhat unrealistic that a widow and young children would be so unaffected by a sudden death in their family...or be so forgiving of the one who caused it. I mean, I guess it's *nice*, but a little more grieving or bitterness would've been only natural. Maybe a deliberate choice to make this family act lighthearted about their loss, to lessen the impact of the tragedy and make sure *we* forgive those involved in the death - since it's just a plot device anyway, not the real point of the film. Still strange though.$LABEL$ 1
+The murders in Opera are not actual murders as much as they are symbols of past events and parts of Betty's own fractured personality. In fact, Betty is the same person (a male) that Suzy Bannion is in Suspiria, only a decade later in life (Suzy was a boy of ten who befriended another boy of ten with a more mild version of his own background).It helps to think of Betty's luxury apartment as a military barracks bay; she spends most of her time in her bedroom in bed next to her stereo it seems, and other parts of her apartment seem foreign to her somehow, as though other people live in those other rooms.Dario Argento's movies sync with a wide array of Rock music, as well as Funk (Dario starts the syncs right at the beginning of his films, the flash of the eye in Opera, and the start of a drum roll in Suspiria). There are also standard movies that Opera (and Suspiria) sync with. For example, Opera syncs with with a record album by Judas Priest called Priest ... Live (as does Suspiria), and Suspiria syncs very well with a Kiss record album entitled Kiss Alive II. Movies like Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Image, and The Vampire Happening are sync movies Argento uses which deal with the same subject matter as Argento's films. These syncs, along with many others reveal Betty to be a male who suffered sexual torture at the hands of his father since birth (even in the womb according to a certain Anne Rice novel entitled Lasher).Anyway, large budget films are occult works which relay spy information collected by occult means, all in synchronized symbolic/alchemical fashion. Usually, the sync point in a film is the beginning of the sound score, or it is the first image of the film beyond any film company lead-in. Sometimes it is more creative. The heavy metal music used in Opera and Phenomena are simply music syncs that were deciphered out of other films that Argento's movies sync with, an intellectual game of sorts among the elite within the industry.So, Betty doesn't respond normally to the murders she witnesses because she didn't ever witness a murder of any real person. "She herself" simply suffers soul murder; she witnesses her own "murder;" this individual's father almost dropped him down an abandoned mine shaft in Arizon at age 4, in 1970; he was on the verge of falling off a wood plank his father balance him on before dad changed his mind and grabbed him and yanked him back off it; the kid felt nothing consciously. Memories of sexual torture are lost to this individual via extreme sexual repression, and the vague memories which remain are of the big, square, deep hole in the desert and no significance is placed on this memory because of the lack of conscious trauma (the "loss of trauma," also a "buried trait," is portrayed in the 1975 film entitled The Image). Those sausages up in the attic in Suspiria are each individual memories of the first three or so years of a life (Toys In The Attic).The reason Betty (or Suzy) is a female character is because the individual Christina Marsillach's character mirrors is a male who has been trained into a female role of sorts since birth (all of the DVD's of the Simpsons cartoon sync with Suspiria), with his very nature having been molded along "queen" lines (The X-Files episodes sync with Opera). This has even altered his body to be "beautiful" in the way a woman's is. Behavior alters genetics. A more recent movie entitled Death Proof deals with the same ideas and the same individual.Virtually the entire life of this person is mirrored on large budget films, record albums, and books made since 1966, and father prior to 1966 and after. The Scorpions album entitled Virgin Killer is a Suspiria sync album, the original album cover acting as a symbolic mirror image of the fall through the skylight.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me first start with the obvious: antisemitism has been a serious problem throughout history, present in many societies and causing the deaths of million of Jews. That said, the problem with this movie is that it views the United States - probably the most welcoming society ever to Jews outside of Israel - as a not very different place from Nazi Germany. Set in 1943, the movie is about a man (William H. Macy) who gets confused with a Jew after he starts wearing glasses!. A number of very nasty things happen to him after that (he loses his job and he is unable to find a new one, his neighbors shunned him, all ending up in a violent confrontation). From one of Arthur Miller's self pitying, patronizing novels, the sort that gave liberalism a bad name.$LABEL$ 0
+This is your standard musical comedy from the '30's, with a big plus that it features some well known '30's actors in small fun cameo's.There is not much to the story and basically the movie is all about its fun and 'no-worries' overall kind of atmosphere, with a typical Hal Roach comedy touch to it. Appereantly it's a 'Cinderella story' but I most certainly didn't thought of it that way while watching the movie. The story gets very muddled in into the storytelling, that features many different characters and also many small cameo appearance, when the main characters hit the Hollywood studios.Of course the highlight of the movie is when Laurel & Hardy make their appearance and show some of their routines. It's like watching a movie and getting a Laurel & Hardy short with it for free. Also Laurel & Hardy regular Walter Long makes an appearance in the routine and James Finlayson (without a mustache this time) as the director of the short.It's certainly true that all of the cameo's and subplots distract from the main plot line and character but in this case that is no problem, since its all way more fun and interesting to watch than the main plot line and the shallow typical main character.The movie is most certainly not any worse than any of its other genre movies from the same time period, though the rating on here would suggest otherwise.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+terry and june in my mind, is a all time classic, along the ranks with bless this house with the late sid james and the late diana coupland, but terry scott will be sadly missed even tho he passed away in 1994. i have all the dvds upto press and i look forward to getting all 9, also would be nice to see "happy after ever" released on DVDjune whitfield is still going strong and terry scott will always live on in my memoryterry scott r.i.p. there aren't many comedies today that i can think of that will stay in the legends list and yes the middle class bit does get on some peoples wicks but i don't mind, i think it would be brilliant to see some celebration of the life of terry scott$LABEL$ 1
+I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary/drama about a future "grand tour" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would/will be separate missions.They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones "it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...".Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation!$LABEL$ 1
+Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a re-write of the 1978 Warren Beatty movie, "Heaven Can Wait", but it is written for the stand-up comedic style of Mr Rock. The premise remains the same: Lance Barton, (Rock) is taken before his life time is up and works a deal with God's representative, Mr King, to come back to earth as someone else. As in Beatty's movie; he chooses the murdered Charles Wellington, a rich white man, all because he fancies Sontee Jenkins (Regina King) who happens to turn up at Wellington's house during the murder. The role of Mrs Wellington and her lover suffers in this remake and the idea to turn an aged white multi-millionaire into a stand up black comedian who tries to woo Sontee simply does not work. Also the intercuts used to show Rock as Wellington and then as the real 'white' Wellington, fail miserably. Improvements could have been made to the original Beatty plot - which in itself did not masterfully portray the life-after-death idea - but they certainly were not to be found in "Down To Earth".$LABEL$ 0
+I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that "should" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.$LABEL$ 0
+I was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations.$LABEL$ 0
+I seem to remember a lot of hype about this movie when it came out, but had avoided seeing it throughout the years. I wish I'd waited longer. Maybe this movie was funny in 1988, I don't know. I was younger then, but it didn't seem like the world was that different. Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely as she is, is never convincing. Mercedes Ruehl not only chews scenery, but stuffs it in her cheeks like a gerbil to save for later. Dean Stockwell is about as convincing as a mob boss as James Gandolfini would be as principal dancer for the Bolshoi. And Matthew Modine demonstrated the most pronounced case of delayed puberty I've ever seen. All in all, it's not bad enough to make you want to pluck out your eyes with a melon-baller, but it's not far off.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of those Film's/pilot that if you knew BattleStar Galactica it helps, but isn't necessary. What makes this even more believable of a story than BSG is that this isn't something so far away in the future. This has such a depth to it that it is quite astonishing it was not released theatrically. The leads could not have been chosen better in such experienced & quite talented actors. Eric Stoltz is superb as the father who will do anything to be re-united w/his daughter however real or not she is & he'll do it no matter the cost. Paula Malcomson of "Deadwood" fame is terrific as his wife as well. You are not sure completely of his motives whether it's love or money or both, but that is what makes this pilot even more intriguing. I see a star in the making of Zoe played by the relative unknown Alessandra Torresani & her performance. Esai Morales is terrific in his desire to see his loved one again & just how wrong to be even considering what he wants more than his moral objections. I didn't think this would be a good idea when it was announced but from the pilot alone I am thrilled to see how we got to the BSG stage story. It's great to see Adama as a child already being affected & influenced by the different sorts of Robots starting to permeate life at this stage. I just hope that they can keep up the stories so we can figure out even more how they got the the Humanoid typed robots. This is an almost perfect pilot & I hope they can keep up the fantastic storytelling. Even the Visual effects are better than most of the garbage you see on the big screen. If you haven't gotten into BSG, @ least try this & I'll bet you become a fan & will want to see how the BSG story came to be.$LABEL$ 1
+Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it.$LABEL$ 0
+When this show first aired I will admit to being intrigued by the premise and the setting. With an open mind I watched the first two episodes and naturally dismissed it as being destined to run for a half-season at most. I happened to be watching A/E recently and witnessed an ad for this garbage and I could barely contain my surprise. I truly hope people are watching this for a laugh and not taking it seriously. The characters are truly some of the most ridiculous and outright laughable on television, scripted or otherwise. It's obviously generating ratings so I must give the creators credit for establishing and maintaining a fanbase, but I seriously hope no one is watching this under any pretense of seriousness.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is the biggest steaming pile of you know what, Being from and growing up in Wichita Kansas;I know for a fact 90% of the movie was Bogus. Aside from the names of some of the victims, nothing else much was correct. The movie looks like it was made with dad's handy-cam, It had footage that I believe came from another film along with stock footage from a slaughter house. I usually enjoy watching bad films for the fun of it, but due to the bad acting, poorly prepared or non existent sets and a very dull and short ending.It was a struggle to watch it through to the ending. I recommend that you not waste your money on this film or you will be sorry. Crunch$LABEL$ 0
+A haunting piece that the discerning horror film fan will fall upon with gratitude. Keep your Freddys and your Jasons -- this film is in the same company as "The Haunting" (the original). Lyrical and truthful, it stays with you long into the night, much like those terrifying CBS Radio Mystery Theatre shows. A smart rent.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has the guts to suggest that it might be best to simply accept your life as it is, and keep smiling anyway. As one who is more excited by the idea of taking charge of one's life and moving forward, I felt slapped in the face, but that's okay: I don't have to agree with a movie to love it and respect it. Great acting by Streep and Hurt, and everyone else really, and some wonderfully quirky scenes. A serious film. And take a hanky.$LABEL$ 1
+I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.A travesty.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, I have to start this comment by saying I'm a huge Nightmare on Elm Street fan. I think it's the greatest horror series ever. For me, Freddy is the boogeyman! Of course, Freddy's Dead, which tried to be the last chapter back then, is a weird movie. It doesn't have the same atmosphere than the previous films. Freddy has a lot of screen time. Some think it makes him less scary, which I do agree. And that's, in my opinion, exactly the point. This movie exists so we can know Freddy a little better, who he is, who he were, how he became the man haunting our dreams. For some people, it's a bad thing, it's better if we never know because it's scarier not to know why evil is evil. Obviously those people won't like Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. To truly enjoy this one, you have to see things differently. It's not about a strange guy hiding in the bush of your dreamland waiting to scare the hell out of you. This was the first one, and it was awesome. As the years passed by, Freddy killed more and more people, and nobody could ever get rid of him for good. Now it's time to learn about the nature of this evil, the psychological aspects of Freddy's realm of terror. Beside the story of Freddy's past, I also really liked the atmosphere of the movie. No more kids in Springwood, only crazy grown-ups. The nightmare scenes are all great. The soundtrack is awesome, especially the opening song called ''I'm Awake Now'' performed by Goo Goo Dolls. In my opinion, The Final Nightmare is a horror masterpiece and I can't believe it's so underrated. Maybe it is misunderstood, or I have different tastes! Anyway, all Freddy fans should watch it. It has a lot of scary moments as well as funny moments too, and a lot of cameos! Get yourself ready for something different and you might not be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious – the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three "name" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed – little wonder I've given Redneck a 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+One Dark Night has a typical teen horror film set-up with a quite a unique twist. The ultra-brooding musical score and Gothic/claustrophobic atmosphere adds greatly to this small film that delivers. Meg Tilly is excellent as "Julie," and leads us through the maze of the mausoleum, giving a sense of foreboding and loneliness. The other teens are equally effective in their roles as is Melissa Newman, the ultimate heroine of the film. The special effects are excellent, though dated. This film is highly overlooked, but that may be good so that it was never ruined by endless sequels. There is a great, dark magic flowing through this film; once tapped into, you really get it and you're in for some fun. The double-disc DVD is available, though the original negative could not be found to restore the film. Maybe someday it will be located. I guess in some ways the carbon speckles in parts do help the film by giving it an old school respectability and making it more unexpected at the end when suddenly there are plenty of effects.The second disc has a rough cut/alternate version with a temp score version of the film that gives more explanation of the demise of two of the girls, very Poe-ish("The Cask of Amontillado" comes to mind in a new way!) Also, great ending tension going in on the dark crypt opening. Not sure it had the punch for main stream audiences, but certainly worked for me and extremely creepy.. . also, there is a making of documentary that is interesting because it gives info on what was going on at the time with the actors, crew, director and writer; candid material, then current logos, discussions of shots and scenes, rehearsals. Very unique that this stuff exists for a small film back then.$LABEL$ 1
+Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured. There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.$LABEL$ 1
+I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties. So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened.$LABEL$ 1
+This was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I'm still trying to get over how bad it was. Just because it has Godard's name attached to it, doesn't make it great. Beyond the fact it makes absolutely no sense, we see one insanely long shot of a traffic jam that is not stunning, unbelievable or anything of the sort. While this long shot of the traffic jam is going on you will be feeling probably more like making a pastrami sandwich than continuing watching it. Pieces of a supposed story, silly, stupid characters. What message are we suppose to take from this? It offers nothing and serves no purpose. The arrogance of the director in showcasing these puny, dull chain-smoking french people and having them sit around and converse for hours on end and then getting it passed off as art is truly astounding.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. This, in my opinion, is Rob Lowe at his best. I'm not quite sure why this film has gotten such a low rating. I guess you either love it or hate it, but if nothing else, it is definitely worth a rental.$LABEL$ 1
+Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...I am so disappointed...$LABEL$ 0
+As one of the victims of the whole Enron scandal, my mother forced me to watch this movie with her. How many times can I say awful? The script was so weak, using cliche after cliche. It seems as though the writers pieced this story together with a few articles on Enron. Watching the movie, we honestly were able to complete about half of the one-dimensional characters' lines and thoughts. I realize this was supposedly adapted from a book, but was the book this bad? I don't know what to say. Just terrible. The best thing about the movie? Shannon Elizabeth actually kept her clothes on. Other than that, this movie gets a big fat F.$LABEL$ 0
+I disliked this film intensely and left during the scene where the loyalist gang are shot up by the British. The film effectively blames the people of NI as being the cause of their own troubles. It suggests that the 25 year war was a question of intransigence and nothing to do with Britain's partition of Ireland and domination of its history i.e. NI was created by Britain in 1921 irrespective of the wishes of the rest of Ireland.The characters are portrayed as hapless fools, even though I despise loyalist paramilitaries they were fighting for a cause - maintaining their artificial privileges over the Catholic community. It is a known fact that British Intelligence collaborated with loyalists during the war, no doubt to keep the Catholics at bay and demoralise republicanism.Nineties' values about 'machismo', masculinity etc are transposed on to 1970s Belfast and are portrayed as part of the supposedly unique Irish 'psyche' which leads to violence. The stupid song from the woman in the club - old Ireland of green fields ..blah..blah.. - is given a symbolic stature, i.e. poor young fools fighting for an impossible cause. Tedious, ahistorical, cheap and nasty trash. O'Sullivan has made a personal statement on a conflict which requires serious political analysis.$LABEL$ 0
+When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.$LABEL$ 0
+i have just finished watching this film in my GCSE history class. it was thrilling and was a brilliant insight to what actually happened to Steve Biko during the time of the Apartheid law. How anybody can say that this film was the most boring or dull 2 and a half hours of their lives i don't know because it had me hooked from start to finish. it was great how Denzel Washington portrayed him and showed how he was fighting against the Apartheid law and to get equal rights for black people. In one part Steve Biko says to a policeman we are just as weak and human as you are, this is to show them that he and all of the other black people in south Africa were no different to the whites. Donald Woods inspired me because he fort for what he believed in and did not believe totally in apartheid. He and Steve Biko formed a very strong friendship that shook south Africa and went on to awaken the world. i very much enjoyed this film and strongly recommend this to people. it helped me see that racism is not right and that everybody is equal, their fate should not be determined by the colour of somebody's skin. n$LABEL$ 1
+Roeg has done some great movies, but this a turkey. It has a feel of a play written by an untalented high-school student for his class assignment. The set decoration is appealing in a somewhat surrealistic way, but the actual story is insufferable hokum.$LABEL$ 0
+Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish, and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy, lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me* to smack.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely for you!$LABEL$ 1
+Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph$LABEL$ 0
+An imagination is a terrible thing to waste ... especially when you have talented actors. Writer/Director Jones wastes no time in siding the viewer with his protagonist. Anyone who has shared an apartment with a slob will be crying with laughter. Anyone who has arrived while a meter maid places a ticket on your windshield will just plain cry. We've all wanted to rip a terrible toupee off a man's head. These are only snippets of what's in store when watching "Cross Eyed", a heartfelt film that should be a stepping stone for Jones and his wry sense of humor both in front and behind the camera.$LABEL$ 1
+I was just lucky I found this movie. I've been taking advantage of Walmart's $5.50 DVDs, because I watch a lot of movies (and very seldom watch television). I graduated from high school in 1968 - so I have family and many friends who served in Vietnam. This movie really illustrates the pain I've seen in my friends in dealing with what happened to them over there. I wish more people would see this movie - I think maybe more people could understand what happened to our Vietnam vets by watching these excellent actors in the portrayal of one family damaged by that war. The story felt realistic - it isn't mushy, but made me feel what they were going through. I think it helped that Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez were playing father and son - it made their relationship more believable,$LABEL$ 1
+When tradition dictates that an artist must pass his great skills and magic on to an heir, the aging and very proud street performer, known to all as "The King of Masks," becomes desperate for a young man apprentice to adopt and cultivate.His warmth and humanity, tho, find him paying a few dollars for a little person displaced by China's devastating natural disasters, in this case, massive flooding in the 1930's.He takes his new, 7 year old companion, onto his straw houseboat, to live with his prized and beautiful monkey, "General," only to discover that the he-child is a she-child.His life is instantly transformed, as the love he feels for this little slave girl becomes entwined in the stupifying tradition that requires him to pass his art on only to a young man.There are many stories inside this one...many people are touched, and the culture of China opens itself for our Western eye to observe. Thousands of years of heritage boil down into a teacup of drama, and few will leave this DVD behind with a dry eye.The technical transfer itself is not that great, as I found the sound levels all over the meter, and could actually see the video transfer lines in several parts of the movie. Highly recommended :-) 9/10 stars.$LABEL$ 1
+Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite Clive Barker effort. "Hellraiser" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, "Lord of Illusions" doesn't move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his "Books of Blood". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when trying to read "The Damnation Game". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I thought "where is this going?" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE.I read "Cabal" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why Decker kills he says (simply) "Because I like it". Probably something Jeffrey Dahmer said at some point.But I actually liked the film Nightbreed better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist.Nightbreed is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick. Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just a hokey Jason or "Scream"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing.Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned$LABEL$ 1
+"This Is Not A Love Song" is a brilliant example of the chase genre, which many people think has an underlying meaning. The love between the two main characters may be more than fraternal. I believe that Heaton is in love with Spike, but Spike is too naive to see this.I really feel this is portrayed with such scenes as the blow back and letter writing sequences. Heaton shows great intimacy towards Spike. With intense facial expressions and how he takes great care in writing Spike's name on the top of his letters.One thing I've noticed when looking at external reviews, is that when the film has been slated, the reviewer seems to have not fully understood the film, as they haven't even mentioned the possibility of Heaton having sexual feelings for Spike. I also get the feeling that some of the reviewers haven't recognised it, when they use phrases like: "Who is Heaton? What's he doing with a retard like Spike?" This person, however may have hit the nail on the head with their remark. Spike shows noticeable signs of having A.D.D, although I don't think this person has realised this, as he seems to be using the word "retard" as a derogatory term.I really enjoyed this film. Although it is not for the faint hearted. The film is exceedingly character based, after the shooting until the end there isn't much but dialogue between the two anti-heroes. Unless you are used to watching such deep, gritty films, stay well away.$LABEL$ 1
+Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris.$LABEL$ 0
+Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense.$LABEL$ 1
+For years we've been watching every horror film that comes out, from the dull Hollywood retreads like Saw 2, to awful indie releases that are completely unmatchable... we suffer through all of bad films in hopes of finding little gems like "Dark Remains".We managed to catch a screening of this film at Shriekfest 2005. The audience loved it and I believe it ended up winning the award for the best film.While it may not have the budget or star power of studio films, it packs a serious punch in the creepy atmosphere and scare category. The acting and cinematography are top notch, but it's the direction that makes this film worth the view. The story and characters develop at just the right pace to provide some fantastic scares.The editing and visual fx are also top notch. And while many horror films don't manage to use music to their benefit, the score for "Dark Remains" only adds to it's creepiness.I know the film has shown at a bunch of festivals, but none have been near me, so I can't wait to hear when it'll finally be coming out on DVD. Trust me, even if you're sick of the current state of horror films, give this one a try... you won't regret it!$LABEL$ 1
+Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.$LABEL$ 0
+"After World War I, an expedition representing the Allied countries is sent to Cambodia to stop the efforts of Count Mazovia in creating a zombie like army of soldiers and laborers. Hoping to prevent a possible outbreak of war due to Mazovia's actions, the group presses through the jungle to Angkor Wat in spite of the perils. The group includes Armand who has his own agenda contrary to the group's wishes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. Heads up! the zombie make-up department revolted before the cameras started to roll. Also, this "Revolt of the Zombies" has little to do with its supposed predecessor "White Zombie" (1932) *****, which starred Bela Lugosi. If that film's zombies didn't thrill you, this one's certainly won't. A younger-than-usual Dean Jagger (as Armand Louque) stars as a man obsessive with blonde Dorothy Stone (as Claire Duval). A couple supporting performances are good: devilish Roy D'Arcy (as Mazovia) and subservient Teru Shimada (as Buna); however, neither are given enough material to really pull this one out of the dumps.** Revolt of the Zombies (1936) Victor Halperin ~ Dean Jagger, Dorothy Stone, Roy D'Arcy$LABEL$ 0
+***Minor Plot Spoilers***I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'.$LABEL$ 0
+Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.My rating: 1/5$LABEL$ 0
+Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior.$LABEL$ 0
+I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Joe Dante's original THE HOWLING (1981) – so I wasn't particularly interested in checking out any of its sequels; some time ago, I did catch HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS (1987) – by the same director as this one – and found it to be watchable but nothing special.The second instalment, however, has quite a bad rep and I knew I'd have a good time watching it – if mainly to wallow in the sight of dear but pompous horror icon Christopher Lee squirming in the midst of it all (the gracefully-aged star has pathetically asserted a number of times in interviews that he hasn't appeared in horror-oriented fare since his last picture for Hammer Films back in 1976!). Anyway, this film should have borne the subtitle "Your Movie Is A Turd" – being astoundingly inept in all departments (beginning with the all-important werewolf make-up)! The plot (and dialogue) is not only terrible, but it has the limpest connection with Dante's film – strangely enough, the author of the original novel Gary Brandner co-wrote this himself! Still, one of the undeniable highlights (er...low points) of the film is the pointless elliptical editing – which tries to give the whole a semblance of style, but only serves to accentuate its embarrassment factor! Similarly phoney (and grating) are the hokey transitions between scenes, the inane punk-rock theme song, and the cheapjack special-effects at the climax! What about the characters, then?: Lee is the werewolf expert, naturally, whom everybody thinks a crackpot – until they come into contact with the monsters, that is; at the very least, though, one has to admire the makers' ingenuity (or gall) in devising a stupid subtitle with a dual meaning! Incidentally, Sybil Danning (as Stirba, Werewolf Bitch – the subtitle by which this is known in the U.K.!) is quite fetching in an assortment of outrageous S&M outfits...but her character is virtually given nothing to do (except preside over her brood of followers and engage in the occasional hilarious three-way lycanthrope sex!); her two snarling lieutenants (one of them a sluttish black girl) are especially irritating.Aiding Lee on the side of good are the two yuppie heroes (he being the brother of the Dee Wallace character from the first film and she a colleague of hers) and a ragged guerrilla-type band of Transylvians (still, they generally manage to effortlessly overcome Danning's rather dumb werewolves!). Notable among them is a knife-throwing dwarf who gets a particularly nasty (but, at the same time, side-splitting) demise; he's later revived, under Stirba's control, in order to lure Lee (by making childish taunts at him all through the village streets) into a trap. The latter scene has to be a career nadir for the distinguished and imposing actor – well, either this or the early sequence in a discotheque where Lee is made to don a pair of ultra-cool sunglasses so as to appear inconspicuous among the partying youngsters!In the end, if I were forced to mention elements in this which weren't entirely displeasing, I guess I could say that the ossuary set (in which the heroine is to be sacrificed) is interesting, or that the hybrid werewolf/bat creature (Danning's pet who likes to 'inhabit' the body of its victims) is just too weird to be despised...$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less!$LABEL$ 1
+Cooley High is considered one of my best all time movies. It certainly reminds me of days of my youth growing up in the cities of Cleveland and Chicago during the early, mid, and late 1960's. What ever happened to Brenda and Pooter? Some one need's to track those two down. Brenda for her beauty and Pooter for his innocent wit. They both deserve to be recognized even 31 years after this film was debuted. I think a lot of the fans of this movie would like to find out what happened to them as well as others who acted in this fun filled movie. I certainly think this movie should be entered into some type of MOVIE HALL OF FAME. All of the cast of this movie was great. My opinion is of " Cooley High " is turn back the hands of time, those were the fun years.$LABEL$ 1
+Though derivative, "Labyrinth" still stands as the highlight of the mid-half of the six-year-old show. Finally a story allows Welling to show how he has grown as an actor. It's not easy playing a character that is the embodiment of "truth, justice, and the American way" on a weekly basis with very little variation. His performance, permitting him to show how one might react if he/she discovers that all that he knew may be a lie, was quite believable.Welling rose to the occasion marvelously.As always, Michael Rosenbaum, as the "handicapped" Lex, delivered, as did Kristen Kreuk as a too-sweet-to-be-believed Lana. Allison Mack, the ever-present Chloe, also scored as a slightly "off-her-rocker" version.The use of an annoying hum in the background added to the tone of the installment and made for an engaging drama.$LABEL$ 1
+Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-$LABEL$ 0
+We just finished screening El Padrino in Australia. A phenomenal piece of film work. We look forward to seeing many more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. With his lead role Kilo Vasquez being a perfect combination between Milo Velka from "Blood in Blood Out" and Al Pacino from "Scarface" the film will do wonders for us here in Australia.$LABEL$ 1
+Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible.$LABEL$ 0
+Absolutely one of the 10 best music films Ever! A totally essential educational experience for any music fanatic--Especially young rock/punk fans today...understanding the beginnings of any particular "artistic" movement absolutely requires understanding the roots of the music,as well as the mindset and musical environment of the times....not to mention the political and social factors involved at the time. And,besides all that,this documentary is flat-out rock-n-roll F U N !! Do Not Miss It!!! that said,can anyone tell me when,if ever, "the decline of western civilization"...part 1,( Not part 2,the metal version) will be made available again..hopefully on DVD?$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the "experts" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a very beautiful and slow film. There is nothing Hollywood about it. It is very danish and the characters are very real. It is the first danish film to take up this transsexual theme. It is really about love that has no gender. I would not say it is about lesbian love even though the two main characters (the transsexual veronika and Charlotte) are attracted to each other. It is a story about love and life.The story pretty much takes place in the two apartments. There is almost no background music, which makes it seem more real and intense. The two actors playing the main characters are great. They really make them seem real. They are not archetypes, but real people you could meet in the street. I think it is the first time I have seen a transsexual portrayed this well. Very well done.$LABEL$ 1
+Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.$LABEL$ 0
+My kids loved this movie. we watched it every chance we got.it was fun a fun movie. we watched it as a family and everyone of us enjoyed it. it was a movie you could watch without any uncomfortable spots that you would have to explain to the younger ones. my boys loved this movie and they would love to be able to see it again. even after all these years they remember it. that Amy Jo Johnson was a very cute girl. all my boys had crushes on her. they loved her as the pink power ranger which is why we watched this movie to begin with. (as you can tell i am rambling a bit to fill lines LOL). but seriously it is a fun movie and worth watching. Disney please give us a DVD or replay!$LABEL$ 1
+Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick.Almost everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage, shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)!Ivan Yanachkov$LABEL$ 1
+I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David "Makin' It" Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter" run by Leon! This guy rocks! A "genius" with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the "bad guys". But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! "Johnny's Obese Male Child?" Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE!$LABEL$ 1
+There are a lot of people that put down on these type 80's movies but those people may not have been coming of age during this time. I was just starting college when this movie was released so I could really appreciate it at the time and my friends and I still, to this day, will occasionally joke about certain lines in the movie. As much as I liked Sean Penn's Character Jeff Spicoli in "Fast Times", I actually enjoy Chris Penn's Character "Tommy" more because he is the lead character with more of a actual speaking roll opposed to just a series of one liners such as with Spicoli. Chris Penn should probably pop this film in his VCR and use it for motivation to lose some weight. Yes, the subplot with the Randy Quaid, Vietnam vet character does seem a little out of place, but he does a convincing job in the role. If there is anyone out there that hasn't seen this movie but liked the other similar type movies such as "Fast Times", etc. I highly recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+No one can argue with it. This IS and WILL BE the best movie ever, as it is the perfect definition of what any movie should be : a collective hypnosis beyond times. No movie can give you more perfectly this impression that you carried it inside you, even before you saw it for the first time.There are images that stay forever...$LABEL$ 1
+This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.$LABEL$ 0
+Yeah...I read David Lee Roth's autobiography, "Crazy From the Heat," (which by the way is an amazing read), and DLR says this was his favorite blacksploitation movie as a kid. In fact, he says he always imagined himself as a black guy in Southern Cal. Mr Roth is quoted as saying:"We saw every Blacksploitation picture, and those movies were a HUGE influence on me. Trouble Man, Superfly, Foxy Brown, Shaft, Cleopatra Jones, Blacula, Rudy Ray Moore doin' his Dolemite vibe-I saw all of those..."He goes on to say:"Dolemite - Rudy Ray Moore - was one of the originals. He was a blue comic, doing blue humor. Like Redd Foxx did on early party records. So he was the most perfect to play a new secret agent. His answer was not "Bonds. James Bond." His answer was "Dolemite, motherf*****!" We would wait for that line in all of his movies. "Get Whitey" would show up in every single movie at least once, and we would wait for that, too. They had the cars. They had the shoes. They had the guns. The Haircuts. The Slang. And the scams. And we all knew that all those beatific resolves at the end of the movie were white bull****. He's trying to feed hungry children but he's actually a pimp...bull****. That was designed to make it palatable to our moms and dads so they'd let us go see the picture."Spoken like a true genius. So upon reading about Dolemite in Mr. Roth's book I immediately bought in on DVD and I really like it. Yeah, it's super low-budget, and yeah...I hate rap...but as a fan of Tarantino movies, I can see many similarities, especially some of the 70's fusion/funk ala-jaco pastorius music throughout the film. I also love the scene where the two cops 'bust' him for coke and then one of them snorts a whole bunch of it like he'd done it a thousand times before, and says something like, "Aww yeah....that's the real mccoy!"...and then he continues to talk and has a little bit of coke still on his lip. CLASSIC! Some of the violence is a little over the edge, but shocking, which I would consider to be a positive quality. Not as predictable as I assumed it would be. Definitely going to pick up "The Human Tornado" very soon. 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I can't imagine why it hasn't been theatrically released yet. It's got a great ensemble cast, with Sutherland, Lane, and especially Chris Evans doing spectacular work. Wake up, studio execs!The story is based upon the experiences of the author/screenwriter, growing up as the "poor kid" in an extremely affluent community, where class is everything, and makes a difference in every aspect of life, from clothing to justice.During the film's Q&A, the author was asked about his experiences, and particularly what we don't know about the ultra-rich. He said they aren't stupid, they're very smart (as opposed to how they may portray themselves), they've got plans, and they are a threat!In many ways, this film is extremely timely.$LABEL$ 1
+Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!$LABEL$ 1
+The best part of An American In Paris is the lengthy ballet sequence at the end, where Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron are the living personification of several major painters. Kelly has earlier been established as a pavement artist in Paris, so the sequence is the logical ending to a musical bursting with life and energy, Gershwin tunes, and cast members like Georges Guetary and Oscar Levant. Kelly was at his best here - it's a little different to Singin' in the Rain, and the effect of all the film as one topped with the ballet gives it a definite wow factor. No wonder the sequence ended 'That's Entertainment' after all other MGM musical highlights had gone by!$LABEL$ 1
+For late-80s cheese, this really isn't so bad. There are a lot of pretty funny throwaway one-liners ("That was grand theft!" - "Thanks!") and Madonna gives a fine performance; nothing award-worthy here, but that goes for Razzies as well as Oscars. I'm curious to know if the movie would have been better received if she had used her regular (pre-British influenced) speaking voice rather than the hyper-Bronxy accent used instead. Oh well. As a side note, I got to meet one of the actors who played one of the motorcycle cops through my work; he said that it was a fun film to work on but gave me the sad news that the actor who played Buck the UPS delivery guy died about a year after Who's That Girl$LABEL$ 1
+As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like "Raising Victor" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.$LABEL$ 0
+Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of "seeing" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.RATING: 9 of 10$LABEL$ 1
+The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, "children of the 60s." Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted ¾ of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was *good* relatively during the first parts of it.We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense/half Lifetime Original Movie.As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of "Palances" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only "meat". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really "enhance" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, "I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: "You have to TASTE each other's TIME".Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he/she "thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?"$LABEL$ 0
+I tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since "The Brood" why back when / and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say "game over" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments.$LABEL$ 0
+"Atoll K" aka "Utopia" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, "The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.This movie is one of the un-funniest "comedies" ever filmed.It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made "The Devil's Brother" (1933), "The Music Box," (1932),"Pack Up Your Troubles" (also 1932), "Babes In Toyland" (1934), "Bonnie Scotland" (1935), "Flying Deuces" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is so bad, it's comical. In fact, Mystery Science Theatre 3000, the television show in which three characters watch and parody bad movies, used this very film to mock. I suggest watching it (maybe on YouTube) instead of actually seeing this movie.Please, do not see Hobgoblins if you're not prepared to stop within the first scene. Actually, do not see this movie, period. Please. At least not seriously. Its jokes are not funny (to say the least), and you'll have much more fun parodying or watching a parody of it then viewing the movie.You may feel yourself becoming sick upon watching, so spare yourself. Read a book. Do the laundry. Anything is more fun than watching Hobgoblins.$LABEL$ 0
+I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a "strafing" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned$LABEL$ 0
+I was lucky enough to catch this film finally on Turner Classic films tonight, as it is one of the films that won an Oscar (for special effects) in their yearly month of Oscar winning films. BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS is easily a sequel film for the earlier success of MARY POPPINS. That film too was a big success, and an Oscar winner (Best Actress for Julie Andrews). Like MARY POPPINS BEDKNOBS has David Tomlinson in it, in a role wherein he learns about parenting. It is a fine mixture of live action and animation. It is set in a past period of British history (if not the Edwardian - Georgian world of 1912 London, it is England's coastline during the "Dunkirk" Summer of 1940). It even has old Reginald Owen in it, here as a General in the Home Guard, whereas formerly he was Admiral Boom in MARY POPPINS. Ironically it was Owen's final role.The Home Guard sequences (not too many in the film) reminds one of the British series DAD'S ARMY, dealing with the problems of the local home guard in the early years of the war. The period is also well suggested by the appearance of the three Rawlins children as war orphans from the bombings in the Blitz in London. And (in typical Disney fashion) in the musical number "Portobello Road" different members of the British Army (including soldiers from India and the Caribbean (complete with metal drums yet!)) appear with Scottish and local female auxiliaries in costume.All of which, surprisingly, is a plus. But the biggest plus is that for Angela Lansbury, her performance as Eglantine Price is finally it: her sole real musical film lead. In a noteworthy acting career, Lansbury never got the real career musical role she deserved as Auntie Mame in the musical MAME that came out shortly after BEDKNOBS did. She had been in singing parts (in GASLIGHT with her brief UP IN A BALLOON BOYS, and in THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY with LITTLE YELLOW BIRD, and - best of all - in support and in conclusion of THE HARVEY GIRLS with the final reprise of ON THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND THE SANTA FE). But only here does she play the female lead. So when you hear her singing with David Tomlinson you may be able to understand what we lost when she did not play Mame Dennis Burnside.The rest of the cast is pretty good, Tomlinson here learning that he can rise to the occasion after a lifetime of relative failure. The three children (Cindy O'Callaghan, Roy Snart, and Ian Weighill) actually showing more interesting sides in their characters than their Edwardian predecessors in POPPINS (Weighill in particular, as something of a budding opportunist thinking of blackmailing Lansbury after finding out she is a witch). The only surprising waste (possibly due to cutting of scenes) is Roddy McDowall as the local vicar who is only in two sequences of the film. With his possible role as a disapproving foe of witchcraft he should have had a bigger part. Also of note is John Ericson, as the German officer who leads a raid at the conclusion of the film, only to find that he is facing something more powerful than he ever imagined in the British countryside, and Sam Jaffe as a competitor for the magic formula that Lansbury and Tomlinson are seeking. As for the animation, the two sequences under the sea in a lagoon, and at the wildest soccer match ever drawn are well worth the view, with Tomlinson pulled into the latter as the referee, and getting pretty badly banged up in various charges and scrimmages. As I said it is a pretty fine sample of the Disney studio's best work.$LABEL$ 1
+In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.The polemic and shameful "Cama de Gato" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).Title (Brazil): "Cama de Gato" ("Bed of the Cat")$LABEL$ 0
+I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half.$LABEL$ 0
+I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.$LABEL$ 0
+Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit.$LABEL$ 1
+Who doesn't love the muppets?! Impossible it is to watch them without getting some kind of warm, fuzzy feeling inside. So, I guess what's important is that this movie seemed to very successfully capture what makes the muppets so special. I don't remember much about the details of the plot but the various moments and characters in the film I recall quite fondly. In fact, there was quite a nostalgic atmosphere to the whole movie but without being self-conscious in any bad way. Refreshing for someone who possibly gets too hung up on meticulous details and technique; the "magic" transcends all that other stuff. 'Tis indeed what movies are made of.So, how does the film achieve these things? Hmmm, nice question! Stumped am I? Let's see. Really, I feel like it's quite simple. The filmmakers believe in their material and don't take themselves too seriously in the process. I probably wouldn't say the film has many truly inspired moments, but it does have a certain life to it (that funnily enough a great many "real people" movies lack). A zest. You really want to believe in these funny little people and their adventures. They also have a certain innocence about them that makes them all the more endearing.Generally I get the impression that the people that made the movie just weren't afraid to try whatever felt right to them at the time which gives the whole thing quite a loose feel. Kind of like a really accessible and enjoyable extended jazz session. Lots of talent, little predictability and plenty of warm personalities coming through. The cameos were of course a bunch of nice surprises for instance. Maybe I don't feel I have much to say about it because I was half-asleep when I saw it (and/or as I write this review). Anyway, I'm sort of semi-repeating myself here but I really liked the sense of family the movie had. Full of love I suppose you might say. Again, a feeling of nostalgia comes to mind which not many films manage to achieve so effectively or effortlessly.And to repeat myself once more, one of the film's best charms is its very relaxed and welcoming atmosphere. Like the Nathaniel Hawthorne quote about happiness being (like) a butterfly, so The Muppet Movie greatly succeeds partially by not seeming to try to do so. Same with beauty being best undiscovered or untouched or unforced or something like that. Anyway, if that sounds sappy, I also reckon it was pretty hilarious.So, all in all, this movie was very funny, touching and difficult not to smile along to. Plus it features lots of great music! Highly recommended to all humans, both the young and the young at heart.$LABEL$ 1
+I read thru most of the comments posted here & all I can say it that most of these posters have major problems in life. This show, unlike most game show, was fun. Mr. Shatner, whose brill in ALL that he does, was again the hit of the show. He's genuinely bubbly personality shines like a beacon where ever he goes. He's fun & makes you smile & that's exactly what the show does also. The dancers & questions, the round-about fashion they're presented only add to the shows appeal. And even though there's a Great deal of money at stake it's fun. The pressure (stress) that exists in most game shows does NOT exist here. Several people who posted messages complained how much time is waisted with the dancers & choosing questions, &c, like Millionaire doesn't have similar time wasters. All I can say is most of you have missed the whole concept. The idea here is to have FUN & ENJOY yourself. There's something for everyone. Qustions to test your knowledge, eye candy (the dancers), suspense, Mr. Shatner's wonderful fun-filled personality... well if that doesn't perk-up guys up then I feel bad for you; and if that's not enough, YOU CAN GET RICH! I really miss the show. Out of ALL the games shows that have ever been on, & to be quite frank, I HATE game shows, this is the one I really liked & truly miss. The only other game show I ever liked was Match Game.$LABEL$ 1
+I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.A must for old school horror fans.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called "horror" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons.$LABEL$ 0
+it seems like if you are going to post here it going to be a 10 star rating ,nobody ever seems to dislike anything ,well i am honest, some don't like that but here we go, rachel ray show is just plain awful.!!!!!!, this show reminds me of the snl character linda whatever if she had a cooking -whatever show.i must say i liked rachel on the food network on $35-$40 a day but i am sorry she does not have enough life experience to make her interesting day in and day out,give me ham on the street, anthony bourdain , interesting folks,but most of all i find her annoying, she actually told a member of the studio audience to "shut up" yes in a kidding way but shut up is shut up, and who cares about her pet stories, sorry rachel you been cancelled!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see.$LABEL$ 1
+Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.$LABEL$ 0
+My sister, dad, and I are really into D&D and one night we were browsing Netflix looking for a movie to watch when this one came up. We thought we would try it out and I ended up almost dying from laughter. The writing and acting in this movie is so amazing! Witty characters, great interaction, and hilarious moments kept us in stitches the entire time. I love this movie! It might not make that much sense for those who don't know about Dungeons & Dragons, but nevertheless, it is a good movie. This only goes to show that movies don't need an astronomical budget and big name actors/actresses to be a success. Check it out if you want a good, clean comedy.$LABEL$ 1
+Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is having problems in her marriage and otherwise--enough to see a psychologist. When her promiscuity gets her into trouble, it also involves a bystander, Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes wrapped up in an investigation to discover the identity of a psycho killer.Dressed to Kill is somewhat important historically. It is one of the earlier examples of a contemporary style of thriller that as of this writing has extensions all the way through Hide and Seek (2005). It's odd then that director Brian De Palma was basically trying to crib Hitchcock. For example, De Palma literally lifts parts of Vertigo (1958) for Dressed to Kill's infamous museum scene. Dressed to Kill's shower scenes, as well as its villain and method of death have similarities to Psycho (1960). De Palma also employs a prominent score with recurrent motifs in the style of Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. The similarities do not end there.But De Palma, whether by accident or skill, manages to make an oblique turn from, or perhaps transcend, his influence, with Dressed to Kill having an attitude, structure and flow that has been influential. Maybe partially because of this influence, Dressed to Kill is also deeply flawed when viewed at this point in time. Countless subsequent directors have taken their Hitchcock-like De Palma and honed it, improving nearly every element, so that watched now, after 25 years' worth of influenced thrillers, much of Dressed to Kill seems agonizingly paced, structurally clunky and plot-wise inept.One aspect of the film that unfortunately hasn't been improved is Dressed to Kill's sex and nudity scenes. Both Dickinson and Allen treat us to full frontal nudity (Allen's being from a very skewed angle), and De Palma has lingering shots of Dickinson's breasts, strongly implicit masturbation, and more visceral sex scenes than are usually found in contemporary films. Quite a few scenes approach soft-core porn. I'm no fan of prudishness--quite the opposite. Our culture's puritanical, monogamistic, sheltered attitude towards sex and nudity is disturbing to me. So from my perspective, it's lamentable that Dressed to Kill's emphasis on flesh and its pleasures is one of the few aspects in which others have not strongly followed suit or trumped the film. Perhaps it has been desired, but they have not been allowed to follow suit because of cultural controls from conservative stuffed shirts.De Palma's direction of cinematography and the staging of some scenes are also good enough that it is difficult to do something in the same style better than De Palma does it. He has an odd, characteristic approach to close-ups, and he's fond of shots from interesting angles, such as overhead views and James Whale-like tracking across distant cutaways in the sets. Of course later directors have been flashier, but it's difficult to say that they've been better. Viewed for film-making prowess, at least, the museum scene is remarkable in its ability to build very subtle tension over a dropped glove and a glance or two while following Kate through the intricately nested cubes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.On the other hand, from a point of view caring about the story, and especially if one is expecting to watch a thriller, everything through the museum scene and slightly beyond might seem too slow and silly. Because of its removal from the main genre of the film and its primary concern with directorial panache (as well as cultural facts external to the film), the opening seems like a not very well integrated attempt to titillate and be risqué. Once the first murder occurs, things improve, but because of the film's eventual influence, much of the improvement now seems a bit clichéd and occasionally hokey.The performances are mostly good, although Michael Caine is underused, and Dickinson has to exit sooner than we'd like (but the exit is necessary and very effective). Dressed to Kill is at least likely to hold your interest until the end, but because of facts not contained in the picture itself, hasn't exactly aged well. At this point it is perhaps best to watch the film primarily as a historical relic and as an example--but not the best, even for that era--of some of De Palma's directorial flair.$LABEL$ 1
+Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well.$LABEL$ 1
+For anyone who's judged others at first meeting, here is the perfect tutorial on depth of character. The grumpy old lady has a soft, thoughtful heart - and needs new friends. The flighty, unsure, 'ditsy' dame who makes inappropriate, uncomfortable comments - sees deep into your soul and has pure love for all. The cold, prim, proper, neglected wife has passion simmering that could boil over at any minute - given the right setting. The perfect beauty - rich, sweet, partying, pursued by throngs - wants peace, quiet, and love without possessiveness. By taking the time to look beyond the surface, you will find treasures in everyday life, from the least expected sources. All it takes is patience and a touch of enchantment.$LABEL$ 1
+I couldnt believe how well this kid did on screen, you will completely forget that they are actors and loose yourself in the movie. It is like watching home movies with a twist. I recomend this to everyone. Highly.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.$LABEL$ 0
+Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? * out of 4-(Bad)$LABEL$ 0
+MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as "Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites" and "Odette, Where is thy sting?"Only for Garbo fans.$LABEL$ 0
+Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel… there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not… He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix'). Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited ‘Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.$LABEL$ 0
+I gave this film 2 stars only because Dominic Monaghan actually put effort through in his acting. Everything else about this film is extremely amateur. Everything associated with the direction of this film was very poorly executed. Not only should the director rethink what she is doing for a life career but maybe she should watch a few films. As Dominic Monaghan is a very credible actor, placing him in a film of this caliber makes him look awful. Whomever the "actor" was that played Jack's best friend should never have stepped in front of the camera. I didn't expect much from such a small film, but perhaps a little more time and effort should be put into the characters and their surroundings. Don't waste your time or money on this film (like I did) you will be sorely disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+The show itself basically reflects the typical nature of the average youth; partying and picking up chicks is the common weekend goal at the clubs. People frown upon the show due to its "perverted" idea of picking up girls using technique and strategic characterization, but truth be told, practically every young guy is out doing it at the club. Overall, the show really appeals to the younger population, as we like to see the outcome of a "player's" performance at the club, as the show offers a comical approach made possible by the judging panel. 10/10; a cool, fun and thrilling series that allows the audience to really interact. Good Job Boys.$LABEL$ 1
+Seven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.$LABEL$ 0
+This is as good as it gets.This is six episodes tracing (briefly) what life may have been like when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Done in the style of a nature documentary this show does away with talking heads instead just gives us the good stuff with the dinosaurs attempting to survive.Certainly this isn't a true documentary since none of what we see on screen can be attested to with any certainty, but its a best guess, and an entertaining one at that. Here is a show that brings dinosaurs to life in a realistic way that doesn't involve them eating people. This is a show that should be shown to any kid who loves dinosaurs since it will instill them with the OH WOW factor to go out and find out more. It will also entertain the hell out of them, and you.See this. If you love animal shows or nature or science or Disney True Life Adventures (except no one really gets killed) or just a really good trip to somewhere else run out and get yourself a copy. Your brain will thank you.$LABEL$ 1
+Farscape is the best sci-fi show period, for one main reason, everything the show attempts, it does very well. From a technical aspect, the music is original and perfectly fitted to the show. The special effects are abundance and higher quality then almost any thing else that you will see on your tv. The acting is also great, too many shows nowadays use only the American market of actors for their shows. Remember the first time you saw The Matrix and you said, wow where did that Agent Smith come from? Its the same feeling that you get watching Claudia Black, Anthony Simcoe, Lani Tupu, Virginia Hey, and especially Wayne Pygram. These Aussies are great and it comes through in this great show.The plot is second to none. The next closest thing I can think of is Babylon 5 during the shadow wars episodes, but this tops even that. Its a real treat getting to watch all the episodes sequential again, the intricacies of the interpersonal relationships of the characters are well scripted and performed. The overall plot is both original and thoroughly entertaining. I am always itching for the next show.The comedic episodes are funny, the drama episodes are touching, and the action sequences are tense. The beginning of the second season had some great comedic episodes which had me laughing aloud, something that rarely happens while watching television that is not South Park, Sealab 2021, or Seinfeld. The drama is even harder, whether Crichton is meeting his mother or the characters face thier mortality, all is done with heart and intensity. Lastly it goes without saying that the action is tops. This is sci-fi.If you are a fan of science fiction in the slightest, if you enjoy good television at all, if you like good serialized plot, you owe it to yourself to watch Farscape.Oh, and Ben Browder owns.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short.$LABEL$ 1
+Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+... and I have seen some bad ones.I have nothing good to say about this movie. The acting is poor by Jennifer Tilly - as to be expected. Daryl Hannah does an OK job, but nothing close to being able to save this movie.The biggest flaw in this film is that the plot is so weak - though based on a good premise - that the writer resorted to the "stupid heroine trick" to create a contrived suspense. When all Daryl Hannah would have to do is hide, she runs out in front of her pursuer. The hospital scene is absurd. Without exposing too much of what passes for a plot, I think it would be difficult for a bloody petite woman to carry a pregnant from a hospital without being noticed. Lame. Very lame.Save yourself some time and pick out another flick.$LABEL$ 0
+As I read the script on-line, I thought "Capote" needed a trim. Having just seen it on PPV, I can tell you it wasn't trimmed, it was butchered like that poor family! Example: in the script, Truman dubs Shawn "Adorable One"; here, he is "Mr. Shawn".Bad enough the amateurs behind this movie de-flame Capote and bash his circle (are we to really believe they thought so little of Nelle, they mangled her little opus like an obnoxious in-joke?), they turn Perry Smith into this oh-so-sensitive victim, even as he's shown dispatching the Clutters. It's one thing to fudge the facts, it's another to drop the ball: the executions were carried out between 12:45-1:19 AM, April 14; Truman is shown at the prison 22 HOURS LATER!I was totally underwhelmed by the "acting". Keener doesn't even try to sound like an Alabama native. The way Cooper kept shouting "Alvin!", I was waiting for the Chimpmunks to show up! Hoffman gives us not the charming gadfly, but a pathetic suck-up who sees an horrific act as his ticket to the big time. When Hoffman whines about being "tortured" by the endless appeals, I wanted to give him a shotgun so he could do us both a favor and blow his brains out!$LABEL$ 0
+Note the wide release date of Aug 8, 1945 - about a week before Japan surrendered in WWII, so there will probably be a message for us in "Over 21". Irene Dunne (It Happened one Night, the 1939 version of Love Affair) is Paula Wharton, who goes to live on an army base while her newspaper editor husband is in training school. Alexander Knox ( the Longest Day) is her hubby Max. Look for Charles Coburn (Monkey Business, Gentlemen prefer Blondes) as the stuffy, commanding, newspaper boss. Also look for Cora Witherspoon as Mrs. Gates, from The Women, Bank Dick, Libeled Lady. War story written for the wives' point of view, which wasn't too common in those days. fun commentary on the shabby condition of the "married housing"; Irene's wardrobe in this film certainly wasn't at all shabby.. since they never had to leave their little cottage, it appears the whole movie budget was spent on her always-exquisite dresses and hats.$LABEL$ 1
+I almost burst into tears watching this movie. Not from laughing but from the memories of a great Rodney Dangerfield movie. Candyshack was his first and stole the movie, Easy Money had him at his best, and Back To School is by far an 80's classic masterpiece. Then there was Ladybugs and that's when it started to show. Poor Rodney was getting old (Meet Wally Sparks was a slight step up from Ladybugs but not saying much). In My 5 Wives Rodney plays Monte (a name he must love since that was his name in Easy Money) a rich (isnt he always) guy who loves women and gets married like its nothing. Well now he inherits a huge piece of land and since the land was run by the Amish, he inherits 5 Wives. This sounds like a great idea for a Dangerfield movie. The problem is EVERYTHING. The script is so poor that Rodney seems to be saying his one liners to the camera and all the side characters have nothing to do. The movie looks like it was shot on video with some really poor stunt sequences that are obviously not Rodney. Andrew Dice Clay plays a gangster who looks like he is dying to say the F word (which he should since the film is rated R but plays as if it was PG) and Jerry Stiller has a nice 2 minute cameo. Don't get me wrong, at times I did laugh at a few of Rodney's jokes but the poor man is getting way too old and way too slow. We can see his jokes coming from miles. And the film turns way too PC which thanks to the horrible 1990's, the 70's and 80's Rodney just doesn't work anymore.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched the movie yesterday and for me it was a stunning combination of movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The best of the best. It was never any dull and always moving, every hour there's another character bothering (trying to kill) him. You never know what's next. In one word TERRIFIC !!!$LABEL$ 1
+This is NOT the masterpiece that is Snow White, Cinderella, or Bambi, but it IS a very sweet, enjoyable, romantic, well-done Disney animated feature.There are, of course, lessons included herein for the kiddies, and some very appropriate kiddie-cheek, but there is plenty herein for the adults, as well.While this is somewhat of a regurgitation of the Classic Disney RomCom Adventure, it still holds some elements, which solely belong to the AristoCats. O'Malley is the "tramp" and Dutchess is the "lady," but Dutchess has several kittens and they are all trying to get home.Phil Harris is our tomcat O'Malley. You may recognize his voice, as he also furnished the voice of Baloo the Bear in the Jungle Book, and Little John in Disney's Robin Hood. Eva Gabor lends her silky sweet voice to Dutchess.Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, who directed, or worked on, every Disney animated film worth mentioning until his death in 1985.This is among my very favorite of the Disney animated feature films, and belongs in any Disney collection. The 2-Disk Special Edition Is Due Out This Summer (2007).This rates an 8.4/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+I have recently seen this movie due to Jake's recent success with Brokeback Mountain. I figured I would see the movies that I missed. I had no expectations going into the film so was astounded that I had missed this movie at all. It's a gripping father and son tale, and it is also an underdog story. I even shed a tear at the finale of this wonderful tale. This movie appeals to all ages. The only reason I give it a 9 out of 10 is that it slows down a little in the middle, but it comes back strong in the end. The acting was great, the story was magnificent, and the cinematography was captivating given the setting of the film. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Rent it, buy it, watch it, LOVE IT! I know I did!$LABEL$ 1
+It has very little to do with the books: half of the characters have been eliminated, the plot has been greatly altered, people's parents are changed for different characters . . .However, if you watch it as an independent piece (try and forget you ever read the books) the movie is very well put together, everyone is very good looking, and there is even a sweet ending...$LABEL$ 1
+The worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets.$LABEL$ 0
+Sterling and younger brother try to survive on land, being squeezed by big cattlemen. When 'rogue' brother Preston arrives, a moral dilemma ensues. John 'Drew' Barrymore steals the show as the younger, impressionable brother-Barrymore shows signs here that he could have been an acting powerhouse. Moves at a nice pace to an exciting climax.$LABEL$ 1
+"Kids Like These" could have been a decent film, given the subject matter. But instead it has become a below-average, run-of-the-mill TV-movie of the week, with not much going for it. The acting is stale, the plot predictable and the direction non-existent. For a better movie on the same subject, try the excellent "Le Huitième Jour", a film that really cares about the people with Down-syndrome. In "Kids Like These" they are merely used as an excuse for weepy sentimentality. Pretty appalling. 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie today (opened yesterday here) and was simply delighted.I saw a review that said something to the effect that the reviewer thought this would be just another teen movie, but then found it was based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night ... and then started trying to justify liking this flick on Shakespearean grounds. I really think this is going way overboard: the only connections I could see with Twelfth Night are (a) the basic conceit of a girl masquerading as a man; (b) the extensive male-female humor arising out of that basic conceit; and (c) some of the names (including Viola & Duke).Aside from those names, the thematic commonalties (a & b) are really great themes for any script, and this movie's script is no exception. Beyond that, though, this really is a simply delightful and very contemporary/traditional teen flick. And that's a perfectly legit genre even if highbrows have to find an excuse to like it ... like alluding to Shakespeare.The movie is bright, fast-paced, emotive, stylized, funny ... full of teen hormones and teen humor and male/female humor suitable for all ages. And that's really the best part IMHO: really just about every male stereotype and every female stereotype is depicted in roundly appealing over-the-top fun. Those stereotypes are parodied relentlessly but affectionately, with such a complexity of invention that I'm still a little bewildered ... but really don't feel at all disappointed in that regard, it's not that kind of a movie: things come at you fast and fun and you get a laugh and a groan and then move on to the next split-second happening.Amanda Bynes really is just delightful as Viola / Sebastian; Channing Tatum makes a wonderful Duke; David Cross does a wonderfully over the top Principal Gold. All of the acting and characterizations were fine and on target. Cinematography was excellent.Wonderful entertainment from beginning to end ... check it out!$LABEL$ 1
+SPOILER ALERT! This Movie, Zero Day, Gives An Inside To The Lives Of Two Students, Andre And Calvin, Who Feel Resentment And Hatred For Anyone And Anything Associated With There School.They Go On A Series Of Self-Thought Out "Missions" All Leading Up To The Huge Mission, Which Is Zero Day. Zero Days Contents Are Not Specified Until The Middle To The End Of The Movie. The Viewer Knows Its Serious And Filled With Hate But Is Never Quite Sure Until The End.Now We All Know, If The Movie Is Based On The Columbine Massacre, The Ending Is Pretty Obvious. And The Ending Is No Different Than Any Other Movie About The Attack, They go And Kill Many Of Their Fellow Students In The End.I Have Seen A lot Of Movies On This Attack, And This Movie By Far Is My Favorite, And Most Respected. It Gives The Viewer And Inside Look To The Lives Of These Two Teens Who Hate Life, And Honestly It Gives The Viewer Some What Of An Understanding, And A Closure On The Horrible Event.Being Only 7 When The Events Played Out, I Never Knew The Seriousness Of The Shootings, Until My English Class Was Assigned An Essay Or Story On A Defining Moment In Our Generation. Well I Knew Everyone Was Going To Pick The Twin Towers, But I Wanted To Be Different, Because Of Course The Twin Towers Was Tragic And Very Defining, But I Didn't Think It Was The Right Choice For Me Because there was Really No Way Of Relating To that Because, I Was Only In The 3rd Grade And I Had No Idea What It All Meant. But The Shootings Did Leave And Effect. I Remember The Interviews, The Sky Views Of The School, And The Hurt And Terror In The Eyes Of Thousands Of People.This Movie Is A Compelling, Down To Earth, And Horrific Masterpiece, And I Would Reccomened It To Anyone.$LABEL$ 1
+There's a sign on The Lost Highway that says:*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*(but you already knew that, didn't you?)Since there's a great deal of people that apparently did not get the point of this movie, I'd like to contribute my interpretation of why the plot makes perfect sense. As others have pointed out, one single viewing of this movie is not sufficient. If you have the DVD of MD, you can "cheat" by looking at David Lynch's "Top 10 Hints to Unlocking MD" (but only upon second or third viewing, please.) ;)First of all, Mulholland Drive is downright brilliant. A masterpiece. This is the kind of movie that refuse to leave your head. Not often are the comments on the DVDs very accurate, but Vogue's "It gets inside your head and stays there" really hit the mark.David Lynch deserves praise for creating a movie that not only has a beautifully stylish look to it - cinematography-wise, has great acting (esp. Naomi Watts), a haunting soundtrack by Badalamenti, and a very dream-like quality to it -- but on top of it all it also manages to involve the viewer in such a way that few movies have before. (After all, when is the last time you saw a movie that just wouldn't leave your mind and that everyone felt compelled to talk and write about, regardless of whether they liked it or hated it?)Allright, enough about all that, it's time to justify those statements.Most people that have gone through some effort to try to piece the plot together will have come to the conclusion that the first half of the picture is an illusion/a dream sequence.Of course, that's too bad for all those trying to make sense of the movie by expecting "traditional" methods in which the story is laid out in a timely, logic and linear manner for the viewer. But for those expecting that, I urge you to check the name of the director and come back again. ;)MD is the story of the sad demise of Diane Selwyn, a wannabe-actor who is hopelessly in love with another actor, Camilla Rowles. Due to Diane's lack of talent, she is constantly struggling to advance her career, and feels she failed to deliver on her own and her parents' expectations. Upon realizing that Camilla will never be hers (C. becomes engaged with Adam Kesher, the director), she hires a hitman to get rid of her, and subsequently has to deal with the guilt that it produces.The movie first starts off with what may seem as a strange opening for this kind of thriller; which is some 50s dance/jitterbug contest, in which we can see the main character Betty giving a great performance. We also see an elderly couple (which we will see twice more throughout the movie) together with her, and applauding her.No, wait. This is what most people see the first time they view it. There's actually another very significant fact that is given before the credits - the camera moving into an object (although blurry) and the scene quickly fading out. If you look closely, the object is actually a pillow, revealing that what follows is a dream.The main characters seen in the first half of the movie:Betty: Diane Selwyn's imaginary self, used in the first half of the movie that constitutes the "dream-sequence" - a positive portrayal of a successful, aspiring young actor (the complete opposite of Diane). 'Betty' was chosen as the name as that is the real name of the waitress at Winkies. Notice that in the dream version, the waitresses' name is 'Diane'.Rita: The fantasy version of Camilla Rhodes that, through Diane's dream, and with the help of an imaginary car-accident, is turned into an amnesiac. This makes her vulnerable and dependent on Diane's love. She is then conveniently placed in Betty/Diane's aunt's luxurious home which Betty has been allowed to stay in.Coco: In real life, Adam's mother. In the dream part, the woman in charge of the apartment complex that Betty stays in. She's mainly a strong authority figure, as can be witnessed in both parts of the film.Adam: The director. We know from the second half that he gets engaged with Camilla. His sole purpose for being in the first half of the movie is only to serve as a punching bag for Betty/Diane, since she develops such hatred towards him.Aunt Ruth: Diane's real aunt, but instead of being out of town, she is actually dead. Diane inherited the money left by her aunt and used that to pay for Camilla's murder.Mr. Roach: A typical Lynchian character. Not real; appears only in Diane's dream sequence. He's a mysterious, influential person that controls the chain of events in the dream from his wheelchair. He serves much of the same function as the backwards-talking dwarf (which he also plays) in Twin Peaks.The hitman: The person that murders Camilla. This character is basically the same in both parts of the movie, although rendered in a slightly more goofy fashion in the dream sequence (more on that below).Now, having established the various versions of the characters in the movie, we can begin to delve into the plot. Of course I will not go into every little detail (neither will I lay it out chronologically), but I will try to explain some of the important scenes, in relation to Lynch' "hint-sheet".As I mentioned above, Camilla was re-produced as an amnesiac through her improbable survival of a car-accident in the first 10 minutes of the movie, which left her completely vulnerable. What I found very intriguing with MD, is that Lynch constantly gives hints on what is real and what isn't. I've already mentioned the camera moving into the pillow, but notice how there's two cars riding in each lane approaching the limo.Only one of the cars actually hit the limo; what about the other? Even if they stayed clear of the accident themselves, wouldn't they try to help the others, or at least call for help? My theory is that, since this is a dream, the presence of the other car is just set aside, and forgotten about. Since, as Rogert Ebert so eloquently puts it "Like real dreams, it does not explain, does not complete its sequences, lingers over what it finds fascinating, dismisses unpromising plotlines."Shortly after Rita crawls down from the crash site at Mulholland Dr., and makes her way down the hillside and sneaks into Aunt Ruth's apartment, Betty arrives and we see this creepy old couple driving away, staring ghoulishly at each other and grinning at themselves and the camera. This is the first indication that what we're seeing is a nightmare.Although the old couple seem to be unfamiliar to Betty, I think they're actually her parents (since they were applauding her at the jitterbug contest). Perhaps she didn't know them all that well, and didn't really have as good a relationship with them as she wanted, so the couple is shown as very pleasant and helpful to her in the dream. They also represent her feelings of guilt from the murder, and Diane's sense of unfulfillment regarding her unachieved goals in her life.A rather long and hilarious scene is the one involving the hitman. Diane apparently sees him as the major force behind the campaign trying to pressure the director to accept Camilla's part in the movie (from Adam's party in the second half of the movie), and he therefore occupies a major part of her dream. Because of her feelings of guilt and remorse towards the murder of Camilla, a part of her wants him to miss, so she turns him into a dumb criminal.This scene, I think, is also Lynch's attempt at totally screwing his audience over, since they're given a false pretence in which to view the movie.Gotta love that 'Something just bit me bad' line, though. :)The next interesting scene is the one with the two persons at Twinkies, who are having a conversation about how one of them keep having this recurring nightmare involving a man which is seen by him through a wall outside of the diner that they're sitting in. After a little talk, they head outside and keep walking toward the corner of a fence, accompanied of course by excellent music matching the mood of the scene.When reaching the corner, a bum-like character with a disfigured face appears out from behind the corner, scaring the living crap out of the man having the nightmare. This nightmare exists only in Diane's mind; she saw that guy in the diner when paying for the murder. So, in short, her obessions translate into that poor guy's nightmares. The bum also signifies Diane's evil side, as can be witnessed later in the movie.The Cowboy constitutes (along with the dwarf) one of the strange characters that are always present in the Lynchian landscape -- Diane only saw him for a short while at Adam's party, but just like our own dreams can award insignificant persons that we hardly know a major part in our dreams, so can he be awarded an important part in her dream. We are also given further clues during his scenes that what we're seeing is not real (his sudden disappearance, etc.)The Cowboy is also used as a tool to mock the Director, when he meets up with him at the odd location (the lights here give a clear indication that this is part of a dream). Also notice how he says that he will appear one more time if he (Adam) does good, or two more times if he does bad. Throughout the movie he appears two more times, indicating to Diane that she did bad. He is also the one to wake her up to reality (that scene is probably an illusion made to fit into her requirements of him appearing twice), and shortly thereafter she commits suicide.The espresso-scene with the Castigliane brothers (where we can see Badalamenti, the composer, as Luigi) is probably a result of the fact that Diane was having an espresso just before Camilla and Adam made their announcement at Adam's party in the second half. It could at the same time also be a statement from Lynch.During the scene in which they enter Diane's apartment, the body lying in the bed is Camilla, but notice how she's assumed Diane's sleeping position; Diane is seeing herself in her own dream, but the face is not hers, although it had the same wounds on the face as Diane would have after shooting herself. This scene is also filled with some genuine Lynchian creepiness. Since Diane did not know where (or when) the hitman would get to Camilla and finish her off, she just put her into her own home.In real life, Diane's audition for the movie part was bad. In her dream, she delivers a perfect audition - leaving the whole crew ecstatic about her performance.Also interesting is the fact that the money that in real-life was used to pay for Camilla's murder now appears in Rita/Camilla's purse. This is part of Diane's undoing of her terrible act by effectively being given the money back, as the murder now hasn't taken place.When her neighbor arrives to get her piano-shaped ashtray, another hint is given; she takes the ashtray from her table and leaves, yet later when Camilla and Betty have their encounter on the couch, we see the ashtray appear again when the camera pans over the table, suggesting that Betty's encounter with the neighbor was a fantasy.The catch phrase of the movie Adam is auditioning actresses for is "She is the girl"; which are the exact same words that Diane uses when giving the hitman Camilla's photo resume.The blue box and the key represent the major turning point in the movie, and is where the true identities of the characters are revealed. There's much symbolism going on here; the box may represent Diane's future (it's empty), or it may be a sort of a Pandora's box (the hitman laughs when she asks him what the key will open). Either way, it is connected to the murder by means of the blue key (which is placed next to her after the murder has taken place). The box is also seen at the end of the movie in the hands of the disfigured bum.Club Silencio is a neat little addition to further remind the viewer that what s/he is viewing is not real. It also signifies that Diane is about to wake up to her reality (her reality being a nightmare that she is unable to escape from, even in her dreams).During the chilling scene at the end where the creepy old couple reappear, Diane is tormented in such a way that she sees suicide as the only way out in order to escape the screams and to avoid being haunted by her fears.Anyway, that is my $0.02. Hope this could help people from bashing out at this movie and calling it 'the worst movie ever' or something to that effect, without realizing the plot.As usual, Lynch is all about creating irrational fears, and he certainly achieves that with this picture as well.10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, let's face it. this is a god-awful movie. The plot (such as it is) is horrible, the acting worse. But the movie was made for one reason and one reason only, like all of those awful Mario Lanza movies...just to hear the voice of the star, in this case Pavarotti in his prime. Okay, so maybe the Lanza movies were also an excuse for him to hit on women, but this movie is about hearing Luciano. That alone is worth watching the movie. A big opera star stuck on himself faces his fears, finds humility and love along the way, and belts out a lot of hit numbers, too.I must admit I'm prejudiced on a number of levels. I'm Italian. I'm a big Pavarotti fan (is there anything about Pavarotti that isn't big, including his fan base?). And when I first saw this movie I was going out on my own, seeing the height and depth of Life's possibilities and in love for the first time. So as awful as this movie is, the beautiful voice and memories are enough to make me breathe deep of life and love again.Yes, it's corny and awful. But the voice is immortal and timeless, and the voice is what it's all about. So I give this movie a high rating in hopes that someone who has never heard Pavarotti before will listen and watch and enjoy a new level of music and love, especially since he is now gone. Like Italian food that you've never tried before, try it! You may be pleasantly surprised, as a Luciano lover or prospective Pavarotti peep.$LABEL$ 1
+Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)"Feast of the Dead" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the "evil breeder" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.$LABEL$ 0
+In anticipation of Ang Lee's new movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," I saw this at blockbuster and figured I'd give it a try. A civil war movie is not the typical movie I watch. Luckily though, I had a good feeling about this director. This movie was wonderfully written. The dialogue is in the old southern style, yet doesn't sound cornily out of place and outdated. The spectacular acting helped that aspect of the movie. Toby Maguire was awesome. I thought he was good (but nothing special) in Pleasantville, but here he shines. I have always thought of Skeet Ulrich as a good actor (but nothing special), but here he is excellent as well. The big shocker for me was Jewel. She was amazingly good. Jeffrey Wright, who I had never heard of before, is also excellent in this movie. It seems to me that great acting and great writing and directing go hand in hand. A movie with bad writing makes the actors look bad and visa versa. This movie had the perfect combination. The actors look brilliant and the character development is spectacular. This movie keeps you wishing and hoping good things for some and bad things for others. It lets you really get to know the characters, which are all very dynamic and interesting. The plot is complex, and keeps you on the edge of your seat, guessing, and ready for anything at any time. Literally dozens of times I was sure someone was going to get killed on silent parts in the movie that were "too quiet" (brilliant directing). This was also a beautifully shot movie. The scenery was not breath taking (It's in Missouri and Kansas for goodness sakez) but there was clearly much attention put into picking great nature settings. Has that rough and rugged feel, but keeps an elegance, which is very pleasant on the eyes. The movie was deep. It told a story and in doing so made you think. It had layers underneath that exterior civil war story. Specifically, it focused on two characters that were not quite sure what they were fighting for. There were many more deep issues dealt with in this movie, too many to pick out. It was like a beautifully written short story, filled with symbolism and artistic extras that leaves you thinking during and after the story is done. If you like great acting, writing, lots of action, and some of the best directing ever, see this movie! Take a chance on it.$LABEL$ 1
+This is just the best movie of all times! Sorry, Hollywood! I've seen it in early 70's, as soon as it appeared on the Bulgarian TV, and I loved it immediately (I was 14 then). 25 years later I bought it on a video tape, and a few months ago it finally appeared on a DVD here in Bulgaria. I live with this movie 35 years already, and so do all my friends and my family. My son was a teenager when he saw it for the first time, and he loved it immediately, too (and this is the generation that grew up watching practically only Hollywood movies and not speaking or understanding Russian at all!). What makes this masterpiece of Danelia so special? It's difficult to say, as it is difficult to describe what the beauty is... But the fact is that you can watch this movie dozens of times with the same pleasure as it was the first time. I can't remember any other such movie, no matter how many millions it cost or how great the cast was... Chapeau, Maestro Danelia! Bulgaria loves you!$LABEL$ 1
+William Shakespeare would be very proud of this particular version of his play. Not only is it the best movie version of it, but it's also the only complete version of Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is simply genius. Not only because it was written by Shakespeare, but also because it had the guts to do the whole thing, even if it went just over four hours.We all know the story of the Prince of Denmark and his plot to avenge his father's death, so I won't go into the details of the story. I will, however, tell you that the best part of this Hamlet version is not the breathtaking sets or the stunning photography, but the actors' interpretations of each character. I doubt you'll find a better Polonius than Richard Briers' delicious portrayal. Plus, you can't go wrong with Julie Christie and Jack Lemmon. Also, Derek Jacobi, a regular among Shakespeare adaptations is magnificent as the antagonist to Hamlet.Of course, we must talk about Kenneth Branagh. He wowed audiences when he came onto the scene with his first outing with Shakespeare, Henry V. He outdoes himself with Hamlet. Sure, Olivier's presence was captivating, but I think Branagh's performance is wonderful. When you watch him on screen, it's almost as if he knew exactly how Shakespeare wanted the role to be played. How he wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a total mystery. At least the movie got a few nominations and even an odd choice for Screenplay. I guess they know good writing when they see it though. All in all, you'll never find a more rich and lavish production of the Bard's best play. To say that the technical aspects were awesome would be an understatement. If you love this play and are a fan of Shakespeare, you definitely need to check this movie out. Even if you don't really care for Shakespeare, the visuals will keep you occupied for the duration of the film. You may not think you'll be able to sit through all of it at once, but you'll soon find out that pausing this movie will make you want to see it even more.$LABEL$ 1
+If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.$LABEL$ 0
+Bob Clampett's 'An Itch in Time' milks seven minutes of crazy action out of a very small premise. Elmer Fudd tells his dog that if he scratches himself just once more that he will be given a dreaded bath. Unfortunately for the dog, a relentless flea makes it all but impossible to stop from scratching. The cartoon switches between the flea's progress inside the dog's fur and the dog's desperate attempts to cope with it. In a great sequence that really captures the frustration of an itch that can't be scratched, the dog changes colour from brown to blue to red to polka dotted to plaid! It sounds ludicrously surreal but it perfectly evokes the indescribable feeling of an itch in a way only Clampett could. There are several other elements which make 'An Itch in Time' pure Clampett. There's the grotesque concept itself, which leads to some graphic scenes of the flea munching on the dog's flesh. There's the unrestrained violence that rears its head in any scene featuring the cat. Most notably, there's the dirty jokes including a huge shot of the dog's behind which causes the flea to wolf-whistle and a hysterical sequence in which the dog attempts to scratch himself by dragging his backside along the floor. He momentarily breaks off to address the audience: "Hey, I better cut this out. I may get to like it"! With a very limited concept, Clampett manages to make 'An Itch in Time' a unique, minutiae-based cartoon. Like an early episode of 'Seinfeld', 'An Itch in Time' is practically about nothing but very funny with it.$LABEL$ 1
+Have you seen all the big adventures of last few decades? If you have don't bother with this one as you've already seen most of the scenes already - and I can guarantee that those scenes were originally in much better movies.The story (I'm sure that true storytellers will never forgive me) is childish and stupid (stupid in a way that making it play in a mortuary would result in a bunch of angry walking dead). Every character is based in a cliché and... well, they're nothing but the cliché. And yes, again all you need to be a hero is to be American.At least in Finland they advertised this to be the kind of movie the DVD was made for. Maybe I should sell my player then...1/10$LABEL$ 0
+In New York, when the shy and lonely project manager of a design firm Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) meets Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) in the subway, he invites her to date and have dinner with him. Jenny immediately falls in love for him, they have sex and she discloses her true identity to him, telling that she is the powerful superhero G-Girl. After meeting his co-worker and friend Hannah Lewis (Anna Faris), the needy Jenny becomes jealous, controlling and manipulative, and Matt follows the advice of his best friend Vaughn Haige (Rainn Wilson) and dumps her, breaking her heart. Jenny turns Matt's life into hell, while he has a romance with Hannah. However, the archenemy of G-Girl and former high school sweetheart of Jenny, Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), proposes Matt to lure Jenny to strip her superpowers."My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is delightfully silly and funny. This romantic comedy-adventure has many hilarious moments and is very entertaining. Luke Wilson is great in the role of an idiot, Anna Farris is extremely sexy as usual, and Uma Thurman is great in the role of a deranged neurotic superhero that recalls Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" or Evelyn Draper in "Play Misty For Me". My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Minha Super Ex-Namorada" ("My Super Ex-Girlfriend")$LABEL$ 1
+This game is very addictive, I kept playing it for hours straight until late at night but also the fact that you can't save a game when you are in space contributed to this, at times I just HAD to play on in order not to loose any game data.So yes, "Freelancer" is addictive but also quite flawed. Also for instance, something that extremely bothered me was that you couldn't skip any of the cut scene's with as a result that at times you had to watch the same few minute cut scene time after time. A great opportunity for me to multitask to check my e-mail or have a chat with my friends and more things like that, while I had to wait for the cut scene to be over.The story starts of promising but the further you get the more ridiculous it all gets. Also the game also ends quite abrupt, at least it did so for me. It is quite obvious that they are hinting at a upcoming sequel. I don't know if a sequel is in the works at the moment but I am sure that most likely I will pick one up once it will be released.The gameplay is very easy! Even for those who are not familiar with flight games. To put it boldly, every fool can play this game. Yes, some levels are quite hard and require lots of effort. It took me about 1-2 weeks for me to finish this game which might be a bit too short. But thank God for the multi-player option! It allows you to keep playing short missions, just like the single player game once you have completed it by the way.Even though lot's of mission are the same, it just simply stays cool to be in the middle of the at times massive dogfights.The graphics are good but just not anything revolutionary or anything.Addictive game but beware of its flaws.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+This movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the "good" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so "criminal"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as "fact".I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!$LABEL$ 0
+This agonizing comedy-drama got surprisingly sterling reviews upon its release in 1979. I remember opening the movie-section of the L.A. Times and looking at a 2-page advertisement for "Chapter Two" filled with glowing captions like: "Better than 'The Goodbye Girl'!" and "Neil Simon does it again!" What does Neil Simon do? He takes an autobiographical situation (remarrying too soon after the death of a beloved spouse) and makes it rusty, unpleasant and--worst of all--unfunny. James Caan plays Neil--er..that is, George--a writer who can't seem to get back into life after losing his wife; enter spirited Marsha Mason (real-life Mrs. Simon...soon to be ex-Mrs. Simon) who attempts to love George despite his moods and general melancholy. Mason is very appealing here and might've saved the day were it not for Caan's indifference (not to mention a sub-plot concerning painfully-thin, blonde Valerie Harper which brings the proceedings to a screeching halt). I liked Mason's outburst at the end ("I am wonderful! I am NUTS about me!"), but I saw no happy ending for these two people...and time proved me right. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+Although the figures are higher in proportion to other areas of society, I don't object to the extremely high salaries for many of today's entertainers and athletes.A-Rod, LeBron or Brady all have deals either well with 8 figures, or the low-9 area. Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld could actually become billionaires from their shows, huge residuals and fees they currently demand. Even their cast members, and all of the "Friends" group reached near or over 7 figures per episode. Letterman's earnings for one show could solve most people's financial problems, and a week or two's take care of many for life.But all of these are based upon sound supply/demand principals, and the financial benefits they bring to their employers. And all perform their crafts ably.But then comes along someone like Rachel Ray, who reaches a level of earnings far beyond any apparent level of talent or skill. I find her shrill, annoying, and with a forced "perkiness" that's as phony as the proverbial "3-dollar bill."A friend of mine is responsible for special meetings, events and convention plans for her firm and its affiliates. One of the major talent sources has hundreds of clients available from the $5-10K level, to a handful who get $200K and up per appearance. (This area includes Trump, Seinfeld, Lance Armstrong, Robin Williams, and, no kidding, Larry the Cable Guy.)There are a greater number in the $100,001 - 200,000 range; list included the likes of Bill Cosby, Steve Martin and even cable guy Larry's benefactor, Jeff Foxworthy. This category includes Rachael Ray. I suppose I have to admit there may be sufficient demand for her "talent" and offerings to justify her talk show and there may be some out there who'll pay more than $100K, + first class air, hotel suite, all expenses and limos door-to-door, for just a couple of hours of her whiny prattle at their organization's event. I just can't figure how-in-the-hell this could be possible.$LABEL$ 0
+Roy Andersson has managed to craft something that defies nearly all conventions of what a film should be, a piece of art that is both beautiful, funny and evocative at the same time. The end result is a moving, if somewhat fractured tale about humanity in its simplest and most honest forms.This is unlikely to appeal to everyone, in fact the humour is so finely tuned that many are unlikely to get on its wavelength. The almost absurdly long takes, awkward silences and consistent medium shots will most definitely put off even the most willing of audiences. But it is within these disjointed tales and unconventional thinking that Andersson shapes a world where every character seems to take centre stage in their own absurd way. Each scene is absorbed by the desolate environments, with the characters seemingly left alone in their own oddity Its a difficult piece to watch at times, not least because like many of its scenes, it requires patience. But whilst some may hail it upon an artistic throne, others will simply look on in confusion. Its a film that blends understated humour with own brand of heart$LABEL$ 1
+I stumbled on to this site while looking for a video or DVD of the 1959 version Porgy and Bess with Sammy Davis as Sportin' Life. If anyone finds this on a home movie format please let me know. I talk to my daughters all the time about things that they think are new which, actually have already been done. We went to see a live theater of version a couple of years ago and all I could talk about was this film. Sadly my daughters cannot remember seeing Sammy Davis Jr. in any production, although they have heard of him. Needless to say, they're not familiar with the other great actors in the film. It is a major oversight not to have this classic film (because of the cast) on a home movie format for collectors and for future generations. Anyway, in my opinion this version was the best!$LABEL$ 1
+The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...…To rob a bank!Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score…? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titlesTo be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had massAnother sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.$LABEL$ 0
+Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the main admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.$LABEL$ 0
+When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.Also, everything in the movie was so cliché. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliché.If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand.$LABEL$ 0
+so yes it is quite nostalgic watching the 1st episode because this is the one episode i definitely remembered. i enjoy watching the first season and yes compared to the action packed shows we have now this show seems lame. but frankly i like the "less violent" part of the show and the story line has more substance than the new ones now. I thought it interesting that Belisario's Airwolf and JAG have similar theme - the lead actor (Hawke and Harm) both are looking for an MIA relative (brother, father). wonder if Robert Belisario's personal life mimics these 2 shows' theme.Question - does anyone have pictures of Hawke's cabin. I love that cabin (kinda like a dream cabin of mine) and that is one of the scenes i remember about Airwolf.$LABEL$ 1
+'The second beginning' as it's title explains, shows us the beginning of the end for the human race. Set long before the matrix existed, this short anime written by the Wachowski's shows us the world that could lay infront of us in the not to distant future, set at the turn of the 21st century, the second renaissance delves into issues common with human behaviour; greed, power, control, vanity etc.The use of robots or artificial intellegence as slaves or servents is common among science fiction/fantasy stories. The second renaissance is no exeption to this concept, however instead of a simple man vs. machine layout, this story explains the struggle that the machines put up with, the struggle for acceptance in a world ruled by humans. Where the matrix films show us the human perspective, these short animations tell both sides of the story.The second renaissance part 1 + 2, answer many questions brought up by the original Matrix film, such as how the war broke out, how the sky was blackend, what led to the use of humans as batteries and it also introduces us to the machine city called 01, which may have relevance to the upcoming Matrix Revolutions film.I won't give away too much of the story, as I do not want to ruin the experience for perspective viewers, however, I will recommend it to anybody interested in the world of the matrix or simply anybody interested in Japanese animation (anime).9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+"Thriller" is brilliant. It is a long video, but simply brilliant nonetheless. The song itself is...excellent...add Michael JAckson dancing and you have a golden Phenomenon. Out of all the videos I have ever seen, this is the best. If you have not seen the video yet, then I urge you...The special effects are amazing for it's time... everything from the wearwolf transformation to the idea of these creepy zombies slowly raising from their graves is grand...spookishly grand that is. Vicent Price has his segment of bone-shivering lines...known simply as "the rap" Ola Ray does good as Michael's girl, and Michael JAckson himself...the dancing, and singing (although not during the video itself) is unmatched...10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of "Lampoon's" truly funny films like "National Lampoon's Golddiggers" - MERK$LABEL$ 0
+I had some expectation for the movie, since it had a nice star cast and it is the return of the duo of Akshay and Saif. Well, I was hesitant to watch the movie because this was done by the same man who wrote the story for Dhoom franchise because I hated Dhoom 2; but if Dhoom 2 is compared to Tashan, I would say Dhoom 2 is very realistic. When I saw the credits at the beginning, I felt nice because it was put up in a nice way. Well, the very first scene itself pis*ed me off. Then, the major drawback of the movie is the action sequences. Me and my friends were laughing our guts off watching this crappy fights. It was like Akshay against some 30 thugs and all and the thugs even got machine guns! Phew...you got to see this to understand how bad the action sequences are.The other thing about the movie is the far too predictable story. It reminded me of some of the early 80's movies.Well, the only thing the movie is worth is of sexy Kareena, who looked really hot in this one.And for that, I give a rating of 2 out of 10.Guys, please..please...don't see this one thinking that it is a real gangster movie. Well, you can watch this to have some laughs at the terrible fight scenes.Thats all.$LABEL$ 0
+Spoof films have come so far since Mel Brooks in 'The Producers' (1968) said "Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Come and join the nazi party". It brought us delightful films, such as 'Young Frankenstein', 'Airplane!', and even 'Naked Gun'. But the good die young. Luckily, the genre managed to make it all the way up to the end of the 90's. And then... the Wayan's Brothers unleashed the apocalypse: 'Scary Movie'. Suddenly the word spoof was an innuendo for crude sex jokes. Most movies claiming to be spoofs since then have followed suit, including 'Scary Movie 2', 'Date Movie' and the film to kill the genre 'Epic Movie'. Sure, there have been some reliefs. There was 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'. Will Ferell has become a vehicle spoofing close to every sport imaginable. Also, the Wayans Brothers quit the 'Scary Movies' and they have been made by the dependable Zucker Brothers. While these films have held some value in the rescue, the genre is tragically doomed to be films only loved by prepubescent males who just discovered what an erection is. People who haven't explored the term 'spoof' and cut and paste movies together for a quick laugh. No heart, no brain, just cheap glue. Sadly, 'The Comebacks' has been added to the list. Dave Koechner (Who starred in 'Anchorman' alongside Ferrell) leads a teams of underdogs to win against a coach (Carl Weathers of 'Happy Gilmore' fame) who got him back into coaching. Koechner has shown promise as a supporting actor, but as a lead in this film, he just sounds scripted. He sounds too much like he's doing a cold read passionately. Also, the jokes about being a washed up coach, who through the course of the movie encourages the team to fail in school and later runs from the police in his underwear, have been done before. Yes, this is a spoof film. But let us remember that even spoofs can have quality. Give the characters dignity and a sort of sophisticated view on modern society. Also, the reliance on stereotypes is not going to get us any more laughs (who knew one movie with jive-talking people could lead to gangster stereotypes (not really, but you see)). While I will admit to laugh at least a few times... it wasn't on par. The football team within itself had a lot of stereotypes, including a Mexican, a cocky jock, a fat guy, the scrawny nerd, and the mentally handicapped aid. Even the only female on the team got reduced to stereotypical female humor, being mostly scantily clad and giving off innuendos. In fact, her character, as well as most of the others, never developed. It's a sad state of affairs for this movie. If only it wasn't so reliant on stupid sex jokes, it could've made something for itself. In fact, this movie will probably be the butt of jokes alongside 'Epic Movie' for time to come. Koechner really deserved better. The script in general was poorly conceived, even naming the championship 'The Toilet Bowl'. So yes. spoof movies are dying. There is a movie called 'Meet the Spartans' (be ahead of the trend, boycott now!) coming out that includes a spoof on Britney Spears' breakdown. So let those kids keep getting erections... but people grow up and lose them. We need sustenance. One day, they will learn to stop spoofing spoofs and restore them. Hopefully, one of the heroes will be 'Get Smart', made by the master Mel Brooks, coming out next year. Rating: 2 out of 5 (Stars)$LABEL$ 0
+To be fair they did as well as they could with a budget of five shillings and sixpence, but the dialogue was more cheesy than 9lbs of emmental and the CGI was a little old hat now. maybe if some of the actors were not so perfectly chiselled out of granite it would have made the film a little better too.. To say this was awful is to do this film a mis-service, if you want to see something that is totally execrable, you gotta sit and waste a couple of hours of your life watching 'sickle', that is soo mind numbingly awful, its actually good,(several large alcoholic beverages are deriguer though. Any road up, I enjoyed this film and its gotta be worth a look if you have not seen it yet, just don't expect anything along the lines of 'jurassic park,the lost world' or 'apocalypto'.$LABEL$ 0
+As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman$LABEL$ 0
+I was totally disgusted with this unnecessary sequel to "The Poseidon Adventure" a movie which I have given a great comment about.This film is unbelievable from the word GO! I agree, why were no other rescues boats around and helicopters? The one that rescued the original survivors had just flown over the boat that Michael Caine & Sally Field are on. THAT WAS THE ONLY RESCUE CREW? Hard to believe.The acting is generally poor and the show looks cheap. I really hated the waste of talent from some good actors.Don't watch this film unless you must catch Sally & Michael as lovers.gord$LABEL$ 0
+Not much to say beyond the summary, save that this is an example of J. Edgar's Hoover's constant attention to maintaining a good "PR" profile. They don't make movies this bad very often, especially with the likes of Jimmy Stewart and Vera Miles in the blend. Too bad. $LABEL$ 0
+There are some comments about this film that say that it is a bad and silly one and such an excellent actor as Pierre Fresnay should not have accepted to act in it.I think, just the opposite, that, even when the film is strange and has some weaknesses, the performance of Pierre Fresnay is so formidable that it converts the film in something excellent.His performance is probably the best in history.The film itself has a very polemic scene about the consecration of wine in the cabaret.For somebody who does not believe that a priest – even a defrocked one – can convert it in Christ's blood, the scene is perhaps bizarre. But for somebody who has been raised in a catholic framework, it is very emotive even if quite unpleasant.The scene of the death of the younger priest is tremendously shocking. But it is very well acted. Pierre Fresnay turns the crazy act of murder in something understandable within the temporal madness of his character, the tortured defrocked Morand who, in this terrible way, comes back to his duty.$LABEL$ 1
+I gave this film my rare 10 stars.When I first began watching it and realized it would not be a film with a strong plot line I almost turned it off. I am very glad I didn't.This is a character driven film, a true story, which revolves mainly around the life of Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, beautiful (inside and out)Black woman and how she touched the lives of so many in the community of Lackawanna.Highly interesting not only its strong characterizations of Nanny and the people who lived at her boardinghouse, but also it gives us a look at what life and community were like for African Americans in the 1950's, prior to integration, and the good and bad sides of segregation and how it ultimately affected and changed the Black community.In addition to excellent performances by all members of the cast, there is some fine singing and dancing from that era.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this a good while ago, but i just cant get over it. I have looked everywhere to try and find out where i can get a copy of it but i have not been able to get a hold of it. I really reccomend this movie and if anyone has any info about how i can get a copy then let me know. thanx$LABEL$ 1
+A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word.$LABEL$ 1
+CACTUS FLOWER was a delightful 1969 comedy based on a Neil Simon play about a dentist (Walter Matthau) having an affair with a young free spirited woman (Goldie Hawn), totally unaware that his devoted nurse/assistant(Ingrid Bergman)is in love with him. Matthau can play this kind of role in his sleep and he doesn't disappoint as the philandering dentist, Dr. Julian Winston, who is dating one woman but really has no clue that he's in love with another. Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for her sparkling performance as Toni Simmons, the aging flower child who slowly comes to realize she is trapped in a dead end affair and is not as dim as she appears on the surface. But the real pleasure for me in this film was the performance of the legendary Ingrid Bergman as Stephanie Dickinson, Dr. Winston's completely devoted assistant, who is willing to to bury and sacrifice her own happiness as long as Dr. Winston is happy with Tony. Bergman is luminous in this film, looking absolutely beautiful (though the camera has always loved her) and showing an unforeseen knack for light comedy. Yes, the dialogue and the settings are slightly dated, but the story is timeless and the performances by the stars make it imminently watchable.$LABEL$ 1
+Screamers is an Italian fantasy film (L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce) bought by Roger Corman and released through his New World Pictures. Of course Corman has to carve his initials on it by having one of his lackeys (Dan T. Miller) direct some additional gore footage before he has it released in the states.L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce is a very entertaining retelling of the Island of Dr. Moreau. It is 1891 and Claudio Cassinelli is shipwrecked on a mysterious island with a few newly escaped convicts. Claudio comes across the stellar Barbara Bach and Richard Johnson. Johnson plays the dastardly Edmund Rackham: a man who is able to manipulate scientist Joseph Cotton into turning the local native population into amphibious deep-sea diving creatures, (they look like a cross between the Black Lagoon creature and one of The Humanoids From the Deep), by convincing Cotton that the mutations are being created for the highest of scientific and humanitarian motives.Having discovered the lost city of Atlantis, Rackham is using the amphibious creatures to loot its treasures. Sexy Barbara Bach plays Cotton's daughter who has a psychic link with these mutations. In one memorable scene, Bach takes a midnight swim with these mutants wearing only a thin white cotton dress that leaves little to the imagination. Claudio discovers one of the convicts he has befriended has been turned into a gill-creature and then all Hell breaks loose.Filmed at the same time and in the same location as Zombi 2, Richard Johnson didn't even have to change suits between films. The house where the experiments take place is the same house Johnson uses to conduct experiments in Zombi 2. Talk about economic filmmaking!The additional footage features a few bloody beheadings, (way to go Roger!), and a laughably bad Cameron Mitchell doing his best pirate imitation. All that's missing is the parrot.Spanish title: Le Continent Des Hommes Poissons$LABEL$ 1
+An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a family film, which to some people is an automatic turn off. It seems that too many people do not want to see films that are not loaded down with failing arms and legs, gratuitous violence and enough expletives to fill the New York phone book. This film is none of those. It is cliché, it is formula, but it is also fun. It doesn't ask you to think, it doesn't demand that you accept the film as reality. It simply does what a good film ought to do, which is to willingly suspend disbelief for two hours and enjoy the adventure. The cast is good, while not excellent. As another commenter pointed out the John Williams sound score was, as usual, excellent. And the fact that a lot of the film was shot in Huntsville at the real space camp made it even more believable. It was ironic that the original release of the film was delayed for some months due to the Challenger Shuttle disaster, which may have played a large part in it's original theatrical opening, but the film eventually has helped to focus the dreams of many young people back towards space and the possibilities that lie therein. SO sit back with your kids and prepare to enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)$LABEL$ 0
+I have a six month old baby at home and time to time she fights sleep really bad. One morning she was having a particular difficult time getting to sleep when the doodle bops theme song came on T.V. She stopped crying almost instantly, and for the rest of the show was content. I sat her in her bouncy seat and watched her kick her legs, swing her arms, and actually laugh at this show. The kept her entertained and happy the entire time. I also got a video of them so that at times when my little one is flustered I have something to calm her. Granted, late at night if she awakes with colic to fuss the doodle bops are not her cup of tea, but they sure do come in handy when I need a little time to do housework,etc. The biggest surprise about the doodle bops is that my child doesn't even like watching T.V. She'd rather be in the floor playing with a toy or with our small toy poodle than watch T.V. yet, the doodle bops have totally captured her attention. I don't know if she will continue to like them in the future but for now she's attached.$LABEL$ 1
+My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of "bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli", "Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony "emotionlessness".The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+A group of douche-bag teenagers go up to an old mining town in hopes of finding gold nuggets. The one hitch in the hair-brained scheme is that the ancient supernatural miner whom the gold belongs to doesn't wish to part with his treasure so easily and so begins to dispatch the interlopers accordingly. Literally cliché-sprouting dialog, horrible acting, some insanely terrible 'southern dialect' and a lame unmemorable killer who resembles Jeepers Creepers (without the aforementioned's predilection of young boys naturally) combine to make this stinker just about unwatchable. Even cult legend actress Karen Black in a small role can't save this aberration.Eye Candy: Elina Madison shows (badly lit) T&A My Grade: D- Where I saw it: TMCX$LABEL$ 0
+I went to the cinema slightly apprehensive, I came out seething with anger at the garbage (passing for a film)I had witnessed. The actors, particularly Travolta, should be ashamed of themselves for their participation in this. Clearly the only thing in their minds was the pay cheque, never mind the debasement of their talents and us . Travolta needs to go back to doing some more "Look who's Talking" movies as he has sunk back to the level of his pre-Tarantino work. It comes to something when the L W Talking sequels are better than this one. Travolta is no longer the King of Cool but the King of Corn. Michael Caine himself admitted to doing bad movies for the pay cheque, Trvolta should follow suit if he has any self respect !$LABEL$ 0
+Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,"invisible", going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour.$LABEL$ 1
+This thing, it shouldn't be called a film, is almost worse than "Manos", but you just have to see it it's hilarious. If you see it at video store rent it, if you see the 10th anniversary edition, yes there is a special edition, for under $10 buy it, if your friend has it borrow it, you just have to see this. The acting is so bad, and the gore is is so fake. After viewing this you'll be asking yourself why did they make this insult of the art of film? That's assuming your face doesn't melt off like the Nazis's in "Raiders" . If you manage to see this, be sure to vote this movie as 1 (awful) so it can make the bottom 100, it really deserves a spot there. I'm surprised it's not number 1, right now.$LABEL$ 0
+"CASOMAI" was the last movie I've seen before getting married, just last year. It was also the first movie I've searched for, after I was married, because we promised to offer a copy to our priest.Sometimes, reality is not that apart from fiction. To all those who wrote that priests like "Don Camillo" don't exist in real life, I would recommend them to visit my Priest Pe. Nuno Westwood, in Estoril, Portugal :-)To all others, I would only recommend them to see this movie, before and after the "I do!" day :-)Rodrigo Ribeiro Portugal$LABEL$ 1
+In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, so this film may not have won any Oscars, but it is not a bad film. The original "D.O.A." is undoubtedly a better film, but that does not mean this film is bad.The film stars Dennis Quaid in one of his early roles, when he was first becoming really famous, after "The Right Stuff" made him a star, and a very lovely looking Meg Ryan, when she was still now quite famous.This is more of an "update" of the 1950 film, rather than a remake, since the setting is different and the characters too, are different. The plot is pretty much the same. A man (this time an English professor at the University of Texas at Austin) is poisoned and he has only 24 hours to find out who poisoned him and why. Meg Ryan plays a young college student who tries to help him. Jane Kaczmarek plays Quaid's estranged wife, in a low key, but intense performance; she steals every scene she is in. Daniel Stern (also in an early role, before "Home Alone" made him famous) plays Quaid's colleague. Charlotte Rampling is fine too in a supporting role.The entire cast is top notch; The film is stylish, with a quick pace that keeps you guessing until the end. I think this is a film that is certainly worth watching as a thriller, and as a modern version of a classic film.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is quite better than the first one "Astérix et Obelix contre César", but it is far away from perfection. The adaptation of the comic book is good, some of the pictures and the dialogs of the movie are the same as in the book. But there's few things that made the movie not as interresting as the animated movie released in 1968. For example the fighting between Numerobis and Amonbofis. This wasn't necessary or even credible, either for the little love story of Astérix. There were also some stuff missing, like the songs that are in the animated movie, and some other things... I am deceived by the movie because they cutted in the stuff I was expecting tho see and they showed things that I did not wanted or needed to see. I know that it would have been very difficult to make the movie exactly the same than the comic book or the animated movie, but that's what I expected. In conclusion, even if the movie is good, I still prefer the animated movie, wich is in my opinion, far better.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't understand how some people can stand playing "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" when there are so many better first-person shooting games available."Counter-Strike" is a game that doesn't use any imaginative ideas in its weaponry. All the weapons in the game are real-life weapons, but there could have been at least a cheat that allowed players to have access to a "supernatural" weapon, like the all-powerful BFG in the Quake & Doom games.Another problem is that the player actually has to reload the weapon manually. This can become extremely annoying, especially while in the middle of a firefight when you are so close to killing the enemy. The reloading delay also gives the feeling that the gun is slow at performing its task.There are not many choices of characters to choose from. If I remember correctly, there are 4 types of characters each for the Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist forces. This means that many of the characters look the same as each other, which really brings down the game's realism.The game is pretty sexist when it comes to character selections. In the early version of Counter-Strike, there was a woman available to choose (in the Terrorist force selection) which was good for the female gamers. In the latest versions, however, the female character was deleted and replaced with another male character. I wonder if the women who played the game were disappointed at the newer versions.Finally, the maps in the game are very small. The biggest map seems to be the desert map, but it has standard detail. In fact, all the maps in the game have standard graphics. In other words, nothing new.To sum up, I think "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" is the most un-imaginative first-person shooting game of all time. There are plenty of better & more imaginative shooting games to play, so why waste your time on this boring game? You're better off playing the Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Doom games. Avoid this over-rated & over-hyped game.I give the game a 1/10.$LABEL$ 0
+George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer. In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not picky with movies, oh I've seen so much crap I could watch anything. Maybe that was the reason I watched this one to the end. Im big fan of RPG games too, but this movie, its a disgrace to any self-respecting RPGer there is. The security-camera footage of a game-play would make it feel more realistic than this movie does. The lines, the cuts, the audio, everything is wrong. In some scenes you can see that it was filmed in some photo when !!!!!(spoilers ahead)!!!!!people running around does not disturb people sitting near computers. I mean would you continue your work if you got ninjas around you? oh and the jokes about pirates, that's the worst one yet in movies!!!!!(spoilers end)!!!!! At least first one felt like a documentary, now it looks like someones home video experiment. You can find better movies at youtube. Top line: Don't waste your time and money on this one, its as bad as it comes.$LABEL$ 0
+This is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen-- it has everything-- a genuinely touching screenplay, fine actors that make subtlety a beautiful art to watch, an actually elegant romance (it's a shame that that kind of romance just doesn't seem to exist anymore), lovely songs and lyrics (especially the final song), an artistic score, and costumes and sets that make you want to live in them. The ending was only a disappointment in that I was expecting a spectacular film to have a brilliant end-- but it was still more wonderful then the vast majority of movies out there. Definitely check this movie out-- over and over again. There are many details you miss the first time that deserve a second look.$LABEL$ 1
+I very much enjoyed "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It gave me, once again, a positive feeling about the power of people to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.It is unfortunate that in Venezuela the twenty percent of wealthy citizens have made all of the decisions for the eighty percent of the poor for decades, if not centuries. However, when their coup failed; after the interim government dissolved the Supreme Court, and The Constitution, and the Ombudsman, and the Electoral Boards, and all Civil Rights, no one took the plotters out behind a barn somewhere and shot them. They haven't even gone to jail. The major plotters are living in Florida, carrying on. And the protection that they had was the "Bolivarian Constitution" passed by a large majority of the Venezuelan People. It is not only History that Bites. Democracy can give you one hell of a nip if you let it loose. And in Venezuela it is loose.$LABEL$ 1
+As good as Schindler's List was, I found this movie much more powerful as it is a documentary and based on real life. It details the story of the Frank family, and Anne in particular. Although it is a bit slow moving at first (detailing their family life before the war); it becomes very powerful.Due to some of the footage and photos of the camps, I would not recommend it for children but for adults, it illustrates the horror of the Holocaust through one young girl. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV$LABEL$ 1
+As a grownup in my mid-40s, I am not even close to any of "Nancy Drew"'s key demographics, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film this afternoon; so, I could tell, were the pair of sixtyish silver-haired ladies down the row from me. The older man who left the theater just ahead of me specifically praised the film to the 20-ish female usher (who said she'd seen the film the previous evening and quite liked it).More to the point, however: In the row just ahead of me, there were nine -- count them, nine -- ten-year-old girls lined up next to each other, passing popcorn and hot dogs and candy back and forth and giggling through the previews.Once the film began, they promptly settled down to watch........and didn't so much as peep till the closing credits began to roll.This is not a perfect film; it doesn't quite pay off its high school subplots, it's not quite confident enough of its own tone, and its thugs are just a hair too far over toward critically inept at times. But the adaptation of the source material is essentially respectful, the plot hangs together fairly well, and it treads deftly between the sins of excessive cheesiness and excessive modernization. Last but not least, Emma Roberts carries the movie with startling grace -- Josh Flitter's superb timing notwithstanding, this is Roberts' movie, and she pulls it off beautifully. Her Nancy Drew is very much the direct ancestor of Kristen Bell's Veronica Mars, and the film is also a lineal descendant of Jodie Foster's early and underrated "Candleshoe".In today's marketplace, it's a rarity: a family movie that respects its viewers' intelligence. As such, it won't be to everyone's taste -- but for what it is, it is the best movie of its kind in decades.$LABEL$ 1
+The title is a reference to the destruction of the remnants of a harvest, like rice husks, by farmers who burn them creating fires on the plains. This is a bleak tale of the destruction of the Japanese soldier.The story is set in the closing days of the Philippines campaign as a soldier with TB who returns from a hospital because since he can walk, they have no room for him. His superior officers don't want him around since he's really too sick to work or fight. Abused by his officer he's sent back to the hospital with orders to either be admitted or kill himself. They still won't take him and he's soon left to wander across the war ravaged landscape trying to find help or a place to stay or even just food. Its a bleak journey with no hope in sight and only death and man's inhumanity to man at every turn.Billed as a harrowing journey into the dark heart of man and war this is also a very funny movie. This isn't to say its not horrifying, it is at times, but its also darkly comic. How could it not be? Here is a film where madness and insanity run rampant, people are constantly trying to hustle tobacco leaves for food, trying to get even a slightly better pair of shoes, trying to remain a Japanese soldier in the face of absurdity by marching constantly but never getting anywhere and you can't help but laugh. To be sure things go darker as it becomes clear that cannibalism maybe, literally and figuratively, the only way to survive, but at the same time there is something uncomfortably funny about the human comedy.Hailed as a great anti-war film its stark photographic style makes clear the insanity of war even as it dazzles our eye with its beauty. Here we see landscapes full of bodies that include the soldier and the civilian. set amid fields forests and trees that would otherwise be, and to some extent still are, quite beautiful. Its a jarring sensation.What intriguing is that I read that this is based on a novel about the redemptive power of Christianity. The director removed all over the religious references to hope and salvation and instead used it as to show that life stinks, war stinks worse and that there is, ultimately no hope.Intellectually I admire the film, emotionally I don't. Part of it is a strident downbeat score which, for me over accentuates what we are seeing on the screen. Its almost gilding the lily since the imagery is so strong it doesn't really need to have the music force you into feeling one way or another.Is it a great film, thats for you to decide. For certain its unlike any other war film, bloody, horrific and real in ways that big budgeted films claim to be but never are. This is not for those adverse to blood and gore since its here in spades.Definitely worth a look.$LABEL$ 1
+LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film "Le Mouton Enrage" (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this "lost" film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the "Special Features" section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.)$LABEL$ 1
+Now, I haven't read the original short story to know all the literary points that went wrong here, so I'm not going to go down that path here.But I have some time ago learnt that Stephen King movies simply -are not- horror films, with perhaps a couple of exceptions. This was not one of them. It started well enough, and for once I'm not going to complain about the acting, although Fred Gwynne was as usual wonderful.. Also I will forgive the total lack of parenting skills, as they were necessary to make the story here move forward...But there was one consistent point that I couldn't help but get annoyed with. And that came pretty close to the end of the movie, and at least 2 characters partook in the activity of dumb stupidity. The moments I refer to are thus: There is a tiny zombie running around the house. You suspect it is under the bed. Do you (a) get as close to the bed as you can before blindly raising the duvet cover up, exposing pretty much your whole body to whatever damage such a teeny undead cannibal might inflict on you, or (b) move a little away from the bed so you can peer under the completely open end from a position of slightly increased safety, or at least see the mini terror coming at you, giving you a little reaction time.I know, let's go with (a). I feel like offering myself up for the slaughter today. BlehFun enough film though... Just not very scary.$LABEL$ 0
+Me and a couple of friends went to rent some movies one day, we picked one each and one of us picked Ironheart. Lets just say that from now on, we never let him pick a movie. This movie sucks$LABEL$ 0
+The DVD for this film is by Alpha Video--a company that almost always releases the poorest quality prints. In Alpha's defense, often that is the only print available, but the specialize in public domain and cheap-o films. If you can find another print by a different company, try it first as the print for this film is scratchy and faded. Still, compared to most Alpha DVDs, this one is excellent--especially since the sound is pretty clear (and Alpha never seems to include closed captionings--even with films with horrid sound).A man has been dating a lady for a very long time. One night, he's a bad boy and spends the night with another woman. Soon afterwords, he comes clean to his fiancée about this, she forgives him and they marry.Very soon after the wedding, he gets a frantic call from the other woman--she NEEDS to see him and has just tried to kill herself. When they meet, he learns that she has an STD and she wanted him to know that he, too, might now have it. Then, although there is a nurse there and they are treating her for the suicide attempt, she somehow finds a gun and kills herself! The makes a HUGE mistake. He does not tell his doctor and he doesn't tell his new wife. Some time passes and now she and the baby are infected! At this point, the doctor meets with the guy and tells him about the importance of getting treatment and they shows him rooms filled with horribly infected people (actually, these were just films of people with STDs that they spliced into the film--most of whom have syphilis).In some ways the film is very progressive. It addresses a serious issue and it's interesting how the film encourages couples NOT to wait to get married but to marry fast and give in to those sexual urges--but only with each other (not bad advice at all). On the other hand, the film never exactly says what it's talking about. They never use the terms STD, VD or the like, nor does it even name the diseases. Often it is referring to syphilis but at other times it's talking about herpes or other STDs--the information just isn't very clear or specific--a VERY common problem with such films from this era. Audiences at the time must have felt quite confused about what they were seeing and many of the more naive probably needed to have some of their 'faster' friends explain it all to them! Speaking of "such films", in the 1930s-50s, lots of small and often sleazy production companies made films decrying the dangers of drugs and sex (though often they really just wanted to promise a bit of cheesecake for audiences who usually could not see such racy fare in Hollywood films). Many of these are hysterically funny since they are so over-done and the information so inaccurate. The most famous examples are REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS (both by the same two-bit production company) and compared to how salacious and stupid those two films are, this cheap film seems like it should be in the Criterion Collection!! Interestingly, there are weirdos out there (I would definitely be included among them) that enjoy seeing the films because they are often so bad and so horribly made that they are great fun. This one, however, isn't THAT bad nor is the message that convoluted and the film of the victims isn't as grotesque as some similar films. While the message really should have been more explicit and useful, for a 1933 film it's pretty good--despite the occasionally poor acting and the ludicrous suicide scene. Remember kids--just say 'NO' to suicide!Oh, by the way, the "two years of treatment" they talk about in the film was actually the norm for syphilis back in 1933. Nowadays, it's a lot more treatable--as are the rest of the STDs.$LABEL$ 0
+If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.$LABEL$ 0
+Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........$LABEL$ 0
+FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! I've been waiting for this film to come out for almost a year, and finally saw it at the premiere in SB. I met a few of the actors, who were really nice and who were great in the movie. i watched the trailer so many times that i didn't know what to expect but got totally sucked in. the film was really beautiful to look at it and the music was good too. i recommend it to anyone who's a ryan donowho fan, and dominique swain was good in it too. the other actors were good also great. I hope it comes out on DVD soon!!!!!i first got into ryan from watching the OC and then saw him in a bunch of good indies like Imaginary Heroes. He is great in this film, and everything that he does that's indie. I also like Dominique but haven't seen her in as much. Hope to see them both in more soon!!!$LABEL$ 1
+There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.$LABEL$ 1
+I felt as though the two hours I spent watching this film may have been better served by perhaps going to the local used bookstore and looking for old fashion magazines and Halston ads. Or perhaps by watching paint dry. Those two employments would have at least engaged my mind a bit more than "India Song." The most frustrating part of sitting through this was that I could see what moods/atmospheres were trying to be created and the notion of these could have been interesting if they had been fleshed out more. Instead, what happened was a presentation of an incoherent, silly chain of nonevents - with the same scenes rehashed over and over to beat some sort of point into our senses.I was loathe to devote more time to this film by writing any sort of review, except to perhaps warn other folks against this waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.*SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called "Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called "vampires", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! "Pathetic" is the only only word that I could use here.Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the "briliant" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying "cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore" !!!This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick.$LABEL$ 0
+a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.$LABEL$ 0
+This film, which I rented under the title "Black Voodoo" should be avoided. I was expecting a blaxploitation/horror flick; but what I got was a very dull, standard "ghost extracts vegence". In this case the ghost was that of a religious cult leader who tried to refuse treatment, but who's plea was ignored and he died in an operation. The result: his spirit posesses Nurse Sherry and forces her to commit acts of murder. The only voodoo connection was to one of the three black characters, in this case a blinded ex-football player, who's mom practiced voodoo. The film is very slow and very dull. There is a very standard ending that provides on excitement, followed by a horrificly stupid ending (warning: SPOILER)In which a woman actually manages to defend herself against murder charges by saying she was possessed. This movie is slow, and bad in a non-funny, just stupefying way. Avoid it at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+Not only does this film have one of the great movie titles, it sports the third teaming of 70s child actors Ike Eissenman and Kim Richards. I seem to remember this film being broadcast Halloween week back in '78 going against Linda Blair in Stranger in our House. I missed it on the first run choosing to see the other film. Later, on repeat, I saw I made the right choice. The movie is not really bad, but, really lacks any chills or surprises. Although, I did like the scene where Richard Crenna shoots the family dog to no avail.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. But I can't understand how this one got made. Who made it? How could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film? Did they do a weekend course at some film school, get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap David Badiel's family one by one until he agreed to be in it? Or was he by any chance a longtime family friend/distant relation doing this out of sheer, misplaced kindness? I don't care, don't want to know. Even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it, mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. Meanwhile the DOP must have been the gaffer from Neighbours, there seemed to be absolutely no sound design, the script, the direction and editing were all abysmal, and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that I can't be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film.$LABEL$ 0
+There are few movies that have the massive amount of non stop ninja action as Ninja III: the Domination. This is a story of love, redemption and revenge, however, this is mainly a story about flipping out and killing people for no reason at all. If you've been searching for a movie where a ninja goes absolutely nuts and takes all kinds of people to their graves just because he's a ninja and he can do it, this is the movie for you. I can't think of any movies to compare this to, because no movie is this awesome. Wait, oh, have you ever seen the thing with two heads? There is a part in that where the titular thing is riding around on a motorcycle and about a million cop cars are chasing it/them around, but they keep crashing and what not BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CATCH THE THING WITH TWO HEADS!!! Well, that is kind of what Ninja III is like. I highly recommend this film especially if you like the following things: Ninjas, swords, Lucinda Dickie from Breakin' and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, video games about being a bouncer in a bar, ambiguous and underdeveloped love stories or "good" ninjas.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow! Wow! Wow! I have never seen a non-preachy documentary on globalization until I saw MARDI GRAS: MADE IN CHINA. This film has zero narration and combines verite footage with sensitive interviews with four teenage workers in China who live inside a factory compound. They play with toys, jump rope, and dance. Yet, the majority of their days and nights consist of work, work, and work -- but the footage of their work is illuminating and mesmerizing to watch. The owner of the factory in China is amazingly open, so much so that he hits home the effects of globalization while he "punishes" the workers. Astutely following Mardi Gras beads from China to the Carnival, the film reveals how the local is connected to the global through humor and interesting, compelling footage from both cultures. One of the most interesting parts in this film is the cross cultural introduction of factory workers and Mardi Gras revelers to each other through pictures. Here, the film comes full circle and shows how images can be a point of communication and transformation. The film is never preachy, is not guilt driven, and allows everyone's point of view to be present. At the end, we -- the viewers -- make up our own conclusions about the complexity of the film, and globalization.$LABEL$ 1
+Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story.$LABEL$ 1
+Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a soid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis.$LABEL$ 1
+Have you ever watched a film, when after it's conclusion, your left pondering what in the world it was all about? Well, say hello to "Scream, Baby, Scream". It's not that the story's complex or anything like that, it's just that it plays out in three completely different modes...1. A fun 60s drug movie...2. A much overplayed soap opera...and 3. a horror flick (with very little to "Scream" about). Much to my surprise, I've found out that it was written by one of my all-time favorites, Larry Cohen. Well, I guess even the best have to learn through trial and error.Playing out much like something from H.G. Lewis(only with lesser fx), this "bad" film does have it's perks. For most of it's short running time there's a pretty cool jazz score to be heard, and there are a couple of memorable scenes...one of those being where a group of kids decide to experiment with acid and take a nice long motor bike ride to the zoo. The camera tricks the director uses to indicate their hallucinatory state is just plain retarded, but amusing. Trust me when I tell you, there's no need to run out of the house to catch this one!$LABEL$ 0
+You'll either love or hate movies such as this thriller set inside a lonesome asylum in a far off lonesome land. It's not so much of a horror show, but a concoction of frightening imageries and wackozoid mental patients. "Scream" is the best term to use in what was obviously a popular drive-in classic noted for some strange and wicked behaviors. Notice the "judge", who's about to put on the ax from behind the doctor! Brr-r-r-r!!! Not much else can be described here other than some bloody tasty goodness, but when you get a chance, remember the familiar old saying by the hag lady: "Get out! Get out! And never ever come back!". Don't you wish you haven't looked in the basement?$LABEL$ 1
+Late, great Grade Z drive-in exploitation filmmaker par excellence Al Adamson really outdoes himself with this gloriously ghastly sci-fi soft-core musical comedy atrocity which plumbs deliciously dismal and dopey depths in sheer celluloid silliness and jaw-dropping stupidity. In the grim totalitarian future of 2047 sex has been deemed an illegal act by the Big Brother-like impotent bumbling idiot the Controller (an amusingly goofy Erwin Fuller). However, sweet'n'sexy Cinderella (radiant blonde cutie pie Catherine Erhardt) remains determined to change things for the better. With the help of her effeminate Fairy Godfather (a flamboyantly campy Jay B. Larson), Cinderella attends a grand gala ball with the specific plan of seducing handsome stud Tom Prince (the dorky Vaughn Armstrong) and teaching everyone that making love is a positive, pleasurable and wholly acceptable activity.Adamson directs this ridiculous yarn with his customary all-thumbs incompetence, staging the incredibly awful'n'inept song and dance sequences with a totally sidesplitting lack of skill and flair. The uproariously abysmal "We All Need Love" number with people in absurd animal costumes awkwardly prancing about the forest is a hilariously horrendous marvel; ditto the equally abominable "Mechnical Man" routine featuring a bunch of clumsily cavorting robots. Louis Horvarth's crude, static cinematography, the tacky plastic miniatures, Sparky Sugerman's groovy throbbing disco score, the copious gratuitous nudity (ravishing brunette hottie Sherri Coyle warrants special praise in this particular department), the brain-numbingly puerile attempts at leering lowbrow humor (Roscoe the Robot law enforcer is especially irritating), and the uniformly terrible performances (Renee Harmon's outrageously hammy portrayal of Cinderella's wicked overbearing stepmother cops the big booby prize here) further enhance the strikingly abundant cheesiness to be savored in this delectably dreadful doozy.$LABEL$ 1
+B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental."You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy.""You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher.""Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"Dr Price is the snake expert.Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.$LABEL$ 0
+Night of the Comet starts as the world prepares for a once in a lifetime event, the passing of a 65 million plus year old comet. Instead of watching the light show Regina Belmont (Catherine Mary Stewart) decides to spend the night with cinema projectionist Larry Dupree (Michael Bowen) in his booth... They awake the next morning & as Larry attempts to leave the cinema he is attacked & killed by a zombie, the same zombie attacks Regina but she manages to escape where upon she discovers that almost everyone on the entire planet has been turned into red dust. Almost everyone because by some amazing coincidence the only other person to survive happens to be her sister Samantha (Kelli Maroney), they desperately search for more survivors & meet up with a long distance trucker named Hector Gomez (Robert Beltran). Meanwhile an evil bunch of scientists need human blood to develop a serum to save themselves from turning into dust & they're on the look out for unwilling donors...Written & directed by Thom Eberhardt I found Night of the Comet a pretty rubbish viewing experience, I'm surprised at the amount of positive comments on IMDb about it because I just thought it was boring crap that never lived up to it's potential. The script starts off 100 miles an hour with the obliteration of the entire population of Earth & a zombie attack but then it goes absolutely nowhere & then eventually introduces the sinister blood stealing scientists towards the end of the film because by that time the slim story has run it's course. There are plot holes too, if these scientists want blood why shoot the three or four gang members & save the two sisters when the guys would have provided more blood for their experiments, killing them just seemed a totally bizarre & an almost suicidal thing to do considering they need blood to develop a cure, it just doesn't make sense I mean if your going to die & you need to experiment on human blood would rather have five or six donors providing blood or just two? I'm not having the fact that the two sisters survived independently of each other, I mean what are the odds on that? When Hector confronts the female scientist for the first time she never mentions Samantha or where she was or where the underground facility was where they took Regina before she committed suicide so how did Hector know these things? I also thought after the first twenty odd minutes the film slows down to a snails pace & became incredibly boring & dull to watch, after hearing so many good things about it Night of the Comet comes across to me as nothing more than an overrated boring piece of crap.Director Eberhardt does a really good job, I liked the look of the film with it's red tinted sky & he manages to create a really cool atmosphere of isolation. Unfortunately there are far too many shots of empty streets, there are constant montage's of empty streets, deserted roads & abandoned buildings & it gets extremely repetitive & dull. OK we get it there's no one else about so there's no need to keep ramming it down our throats by constantly showing roads without cars on them. The zombies are totally wasted, there are two zombie attacks in the entire film & that's two individual zombies as well although there are a couple of effective nightmare scenes. Night of the Comet pays homage, or rips-off whichever you prefer, several other much better films including the obligatory end of the world shopping spree in a mall lifted from Dawn of the Dead (1978). Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any.Technically Night of the Comet is pretty good, the special effects are decent enough & the production crew were obviously very good at closing streets off. The acting was alright expect for Maroney as Samantha the air-head blonde who became highly irritating.Night of the Comet was a big disappointment for me, I had hoped for so much more. Persoanlly I found this film dull, boring, uneventful & the puke inducing sequence where the sisters go shopping to the tune of 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is probably the worst moment in the film. Really bad & I just don't get why so many people like this, I'm sure I'll get slaughtered for saying it so let the abuse begin I can take it...$LABEL$ 0
+The snobs and pseudo experts consider it "a far cry from De Sica's best" The ones suffering from a serious lack of innocence will find a problem connecting to this masterpiece. De Sica spoke in a very direct way. His Italianness doesn't have the convoluted self examination of modern Italian filmmakers, or the bitter self parody of Pietro Germi, the pungent bittersweetness of Mario Monicelli, the solemnity of Visconti or the cold observation of Antonioni. De Sica told us the stories like a father sitting at the edge of his children's bed before they went to sleep. There is no attempt to intellectualize. Miracolo A Milano and in a lesser degree Il Giudizio Universale are realistic fairy tales, or what today we call magic realism. The film is a gem from beginning to end and Toto is the sort of character that you accept with an open heart but that, naturally, requires for you to have a heart. Cinema in its purest form. Magnificent.$LABEL$ 1
+Kurosawa really blew it on this one. Every genius is allowed a failure. The concept is fine but the execution is badly blurred.There is an air of fantasy about this film making it something of an art film. The poverty stricken of Tokyo deserve a fairer and more realistic portrayal. Many of them have interesting stories to tell. A very disappointing film.$LABEL$ 0
+1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.$LABEL$ 1
+What did I just watch? I spent 90 minutes of my precious life watching one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. The concept of a serial killer clown is actually quite scary seeing is there are a lot of people who are afraid of clowns....but having it be a 300 pound nursery rhyme reciting killer clown makes a mockery of the genre. I still am wondering how the character Mark wasn't able to run away from the Clown...he's 300 pounds, he's gotta get tired eventually. The whole ending made me get up and literally say aloud "What did I just watch?" Apparently Brandon is Denise's cousin.... and they had got it on near the middle of the movie meaning he had sex with his cousin.....yeah that's something people want so see *shudders*.Another thing I found hilariously stupid was the opening scene where the clown stabs a woman and she says "What did you do?" Well bytch, what do you think he just did? The last thing that was stupidly funny was one second the main character was slapping the hitch-hiker and calling her a c*nt and then 5 minutes later saying violence isn't helping anything....did the writer of the script give the line to the wrong guy? None of this movie makes sense anyway.The movie was more or less a dumb low budget porno which I got sucked into buying (all 3.99)and got no entertainment out of it besides the sex scenes. I'm surprised the fat clown didn't join the orgy, would have fit right in. I hoped the movie would have some entertainment value like other B movies might have, but I was wrong. This is a moronic piece of garbage that's not even worth watching.1 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+Starting with a "My Name is Joe" like scene in Alcoholics Anonymous tBM careers into a mad spiral of infidelity, double standards and clandestine affairs. but what do you expect from a family of lawyers?A genuinely funny film, with some of the most outrageous characters since The Birdcage, plot and subplot are intertwined with surreal scenes of decadent Parisian life (ever been to a wedding reception in the gents toilet where the brides grandmother and her deranged girlfriend are smoking dope and cracking blue jokes? No, me either!) leading to a final scene of almost Arcadian symbolism.Excellent.$LABEL$ 1
+I liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis "Altaira Morbius.")Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen ("Dr. John J. Adams"), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where "elites" think is so "heavy" and "thought-provoking." That's nonsense. It only appeared "intelligent" because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review.$LABEL$ 0
+In Le Million, Rene Clair, one of the cinema's great directors and great pioneers, created a gem of light comedy which for all its lightness is a groundbreaking and technically brilliant film which clearly influenced subsequent film-makers such as the Marx Brothers, Lubitsch, and Mamoulian. The plot, a witty story of a poor artist who wins a huge lottery jackpot but has to search frantically all over town for the missing ticket, is basically just a device to support a series of wonderfully witty comic scenes enacted in a dream world of the director's imagination.One of the most impressive things about this film is that, though it is set in the middle of Paris and includes nothing actually impossible, it achieves a sustained and involving fairy-tale/fantasy atmosphere, in which it seems quite natural that people sing as much as they talk, or that a tussle over a stolen jacket should take on the form of a football game. Another memorable element is that Le Million includes what may be the funniest opera ever put on film (O that blonde-braided soprano! "I laugh, ha! ha!") Also a delight is the casting: Clair has assembled a group of amazing, sharply different character actors, each of them illustrating with deadly satiric accuracy a bourgeois French "type," so that the film seems like a set of Daumier prints come to life.The hilarity takes a little while to get rolling, and I found the characters not as emotionally engaging as they can be even in a light comedy (as they are, for instance, in many Lubitsch films.) For these reasons I refrained from giving it the highest rating. But these minor cavils shouldn't distract from an enthusiastic recommendation.Should you see it? By all means. Highly recommended whether you want a classic and influential work of cinema or just a fun comedy.$LABEL$ 1
+To view the fictionalized biography "The Phenix City Story", I claim, is to enter fields where U.S. filmmakers have seldom ventured, Director Phil Karlson got his directorial assignment on "The Untouchables" TV mega-hit series largely on the basis of "Kansas City Confidential" and this film; and it has become one of the most admired and most- imitated movies ever made. The rarest feat for US filmmakers seems to be the hero-centered purposeful anti-crime film or TV series; I remind the viewer how mightily "Cain's Hundred"'s and "Hardcastle and McCormick"'s and even "the Untouchables'"' producers had to work to produce anything but episodes devoted largely to the unfictional activities of criminals rather than those of their ethical opponents. This powerful, seminal and very-gritty movie has a style all its own; and its lesson seems to be attention to detail about the opponents and victims of criminal organizations as well as their gang members. There is a twelve-minute prelude to the film, in which reporter Clete Roberts interviews the real participants from the Alabama city's who had struggled against its corrupt vice gangs. The problem grew out of the presence of Fort Benning across the river, and the nearly century-long existence of vice dens in the area. The film details the return of John Patterson from Germany where he has been a prosecutor. His father, defeated for Attorney general of Alabama, refuses to join his pursuit of the 14th street vicelords despite several provocations including a beating of his son, avenged by Patterson on his tormentor. There are several well-developed characters, including Ellie, who works in one of the clubs and her honest boyfriend, the leader of the syndicate, the Pattersons and John's wife, Ed Gage, the vicelords' operatives and Zeke Ward, an honest black man victimized for his opposition to them. The cinematography by Harry Neumann and the art direction by Stanley Fleischer are in B/W and are very much like news-film, adding to the film's realistic power. Music by Harry Sukman contributes to the film effectively. Writer Daniel Mainwaring and Crane Wilbur produced a swift-paced and straightforward story that divides into parts. Part one illustrates the vicelords' empire from inside one of their clubs, showing the fate of a victim who is beaten and then picked up by police in the pay of the Mob. In part two, Albert Patterson refuses to oppose the leader of the Mob, the intelligent Rhett Tanner. In part three, young Patterson returns and after several incidents including his having to beat up the Mob's head goon to avenge his own beating decides to run his father for Attorney General of the state. His wife is horrified; and the Mob kills Zeke Ward's daughter and dumps the body at Patterson's house with a warning his children will be next. A few more such incidents, including the loss of a trial in which the Pattersons prove the goon killed a friend of theirs who had found the car implicated in the murder of the little girl, and watch the inquest declare the death accidental, convince Patterson to run, and he wins the Democratic statewide nomination despite the Mob's statist tactics--and is promptly assassinated. John Patterson stops a vigilante crowd from starting open warfare with the 14th Street mob and uses their voices to call the capital and demand martial law for Phenix City. The clubs are closed and equipment confiscated, but not before the girl inside is murdered by the Mob's goon, and Patterson has to be stopped by Zeke Ward from killing Tanner instead of delivering him to the law. The drama's ending is upbeat; but the prognosis for the town is less- sanguine than painted; the mob in fact tried to come back then moved to Tennessee. In this well-acted classic of anti-crime film-making, Richard Kiley is young but very strong as Patterson, playing it without an accent. John Mcintyre as his father is very good, while Edward Andrews as Boss Tanner is award caliber. Others in the cast include Kathryn Grant as the girl inside, Ellie, Jean Carson and Kathy Marlowe as the Mob's women, John Larch as their goon, Biff Mcguire as the young victim, James Edwards as Zeke Ward, Lenka Peterson as John's wife, and some good character actors as townsmen and Mob bosses. It is I suggest hard to say enough good things about the realism and lack of posturing in this film; it is certainly one of Phil Karlson's best directorial efforts. Karlson also did "The Scarface Mob" later did "Walking Tall" as well. A sobering and inspiring look at the ease with which complacent citizens of a public-interest democracy can acquiesce to tyranny, and how a few honest men can teach them the need to fight for their rights.$LABEL$ 1
+Superficically, "Brigadoon" is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind "An American in Paris", are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior "It's Always Fair Weather" this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as "My Fair Lady" and Minnelli's musical masterpiece "Gigi"; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent "American in Paris."What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like "Cabin in the Sky" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of "Yolanda and the Thief" or "The Pirate" because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally "good" pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.At one point we're assured that "everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon." Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in "Yolanda and the Thief." Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in "AIP"), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance.$LABEL$ 0
+When American author Edgar Allan Poe visits London, he is approached by British journalist Alan Foster, who becomes the target of a peculiar wager. Not believing Poe's assertion that all of his macabre stories have been based on actual experience, Foster accepts a bet from Poe and his friend Sir Thomas Blackwood that he cannot spend an entire night in the Blackwood's haunted castle. Once installed in the abandoned castle, Foster discovers that he is not alone, as he is approached by various beautiful women and handsome men, and a doctor of metaphysics - who explains that they are all lost souls damned to replay the stories of their demises on the anniversary of their deaths! The first time I watched this glorious bit of classic horror, I was mesmerized the entire time. I found the movie genuinely creepy and at the same time sorrowful. Babs Steele is undeniably beautiful. The music score makes the atmosphere twice as terror inducing. The topless scene threw me for a loop, as I was not expecting it. It looks as Synapse did a great job with picture enhancement, because this movie looks damn fine for its age, and it's the Uncut International version, to boot. This is the movie responsible for me starting a Babs Steele and Klaus Kinski collection.$LABEL$ 1
+Near the beginning of "The Godfather: Part III," Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was "Apocalypse Now" back in the 1970's.What's worse, "The Godfather: Part III" isn't even a logical follow-up of "The Godfather: Part II." Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, "......Daddy?" I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made "The Godfather: Part III" at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed.$LABEL$ 0
+This 1947 film stars and was directed and written by Orson Welles (with a funky Irish accent) and also stars the gorgeous Rita Hayworth with less appealing short blonde hair. So, I've hung out with Orson before in Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane and the Third Man etc. but this was my first Rita Hayworth interaction. Our first meeting went well, she does a superb job playing the frightened/cagey Elsa, married to a crippled millionaire lawyer. Mike (Welles) and Elsa fall for each other. He wants to run away with her, she doesn't know if she can live without the things money can buy. Elsa, her husband, and his partner bicker and bite, just like the sharks Mike describes attacking each other and his foretelling proves just too true. Several twists and turns follow in this murder mystery as we come to the climax in the fun house. (Think the ending shootout in The Man with the Golden Gun, which borrowed heavily from this scene). I wasn't sure who the murderer was until the end.This movie is like shrimp in garlic and lemon. The dish centers on the sea, it is subtle, sour, and pungent, all to great effect. These might not be the best, fresh shrimp, but good quality frozen shrimp from Costco. The flavorful sauce adds to the naturalness of the pink shrimp as you fill up on a healthy, but filling alternative to more mundane, common fare. 7/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies$LABEL$ 1
+The plot had some wretched, unbelievable twists. However, the chemistry between Mel Brooks and Leslie Ann Warren was excellent. The insight that she comes to, "There are just moments," provides a philosophical handle by which anyone could pick up, and embrace, life.That was one of several moments that were wonderfully memorable.$LABEL$ 1
+As other reviewers have noted, this movie is a cross between (i.e. stolen from) stories we have seen before. Specifically, this looks like Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter inserted into Mad Max. Remove Clint's cigar, and replace with a cigarette; remove his horse and give him a high-tech motorcycle, and voilà, an updated drifter. In this movie, the "hero" is even more blatantly a "Savior" than High Plains Drifter. Now our hero has long brown hair, suffers a wound to his left side, and his entry into town is preceded by a plea for "salvation" by the surviving townspeople--a pretty transparent reference to a "Second Coming." I watched the movie on a hot, humid morning. Sleep was impossible and upon arising at 4:30 am, there was nothing else on TV. So the movie served its purpose. While unoriginal, with characters that are almost comic caricatures, the movie is still somewhat entertaining...at least at 4:30 in the morning.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action/sweet babes.Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: "One of the greatest movies of all time" and, "Truly a masterpiece". Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: "One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time" and, "Truly an epic fail".In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie "Battleship Potemkin" in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE!$LABEL$ 0
+Shamefull as it may be, this movie actually made it to the videomarket, bringing shame on my proud country - any attempt to watch this movie without stopping or pausing, will be a fruitless attempt. one cannot bear to see more than one hour of this, then having either fallen asleep, or visited the bathroom for puking.Note: if you haven't seen anything else from Denmark, please remember this:some things were never meant to be - but still some idiot goes ahead and makes it anyway!$LABEL$ 0
+Possibly the best movie ever created in the history of Jeffrey Combs career, and one that should be looked upon by all talent in Hollywood for his versatility, charisma, and uniqueness he brings through his characters and his knowledge of acting.$LABEL$ 1
+In Crystal City, a group of Mormons hire the horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) as wagon masters to lead their caravan to San Juan River. Along the journey, they meet first the broken wagon without water of the quack Dr. A. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) and the prostitutes Denver (Joanne Dru) and Fleuretty Phyffe (Ruth Clifford). Then the sadistic outlaws Clegg boys decide to join the Mormon caravan to disguise the patrol leaded by the Sheriff of Crystal City that is chasing them. When the Navajos cross their path, they are invited to visit their hamlet for a dancing party. When the wagon train is near to their destination, the Clegg boys threaten the settlers, forcing Sandy and Travis to take an attitude."Wagon Master" is another great western of John Ford. The sequences with the wagon train crossing the desert and the hills are impressive. The adventure of the group of Mormons is funny and very entertaining and the songs fit well to the plot despite being dated. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Caravana dos Bravos" ("Caravan of the Braves")$LABEL$ 1
+I loved the the film. it beautifully analyzes Italian petty bourgeois society, how the leftists of the 70s have given up all their ideals and come to a happy arrangement which they don't want disturbed. For instance, the aging psychoanalyst who is jealous of his own son, and doesn't want to be reminded of his more radical youth.For a long time wanted to buy the video after having seen the movie a couple of times on the big screen and on TV, but it seems to have completely disappeared from the market, even in Italy no one in the book shops knew about the film. a great pity.The one sex scene, which everyone seems to go on about, does the film no harm.$LABEL$ 1
+"Blame it on Rio" is a romantic comedy 80's style, with more than an eye full of sex throughout its 101 minute running time.The plot concerns two middle-aged men in crisis, one of whom is sorting through his divorce, the other dealing with the possibility of that same prospect. Both good friends, they decide to take a vacation in exotic Rio de Janeiro, each with a daughter at their side. Complications set in when one of them gets involved with the other's daughter.This potential riot of a story is fairly funny and there are some good lines, however it never really becomes hilarious, as it could have. Any attempt at handling the moral issue seriously doesn't work either, and perhaps director Donen should have stuck to the humour of the situation.Not a bad film, but what really ruins it is Michelle Johnson's awful performance as the naughty little temptress Jennifer. While she uses her body to full advantage, it's the only thing she's got. Michelle's acting prowess leaves a great deal to be desired. No wonder we haven't seen her in anything else.Friday, January 7, 1994 - Video$LABEL$ 0
+This was the very first movie I ever saw in the theatre by myself. I was 7 years old, and to this day it is one of my favorite movies. It's pure smarmy cheese. The cartoon was marketed towards young girls, selling dolls with soft bodies and big plastic heads, one for every colour of the rainbow, with their own special animals, 'sprites' and even a talking rainbow horse. Typical of the time period, each show was about how hope, togetherness and magic can make 'everything all better'.The movie concerns the coming of spring, when all the light and colour returns to the world, but this time it just isn't happening for our lovely hero. A spoiled Princess plots to overtake the soul lightgiver (and implied life giver)of the universe, which happens to be a giant diamond, for her own devious purposes, with no regard for reality, and now Rainbow and her newly found friends Orin, Onyx and Chris must save the universe. As I said before, it's cheesy, but it's cute, and it's exactly like all of the other cartoons from that time period, like the CareBear movies, Strawberry Shortcake, Rose Petal and the Smurfs. All movies created to sell dolls to kids. And it works. :)$LABEL$ 1
+This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do.However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.Some matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big Bossman vs Akeem was too short.Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed.Overall Grade - B$LABEL$ 1
+This film is absolute trash and proceeds to become even worse towards the, very protracted, end! The plot is confused and laboured, the actors have a couldn't care less attitude (maybe they were paid in advance - bad move, or knew they weren't going to get paid), and the sets were featureless, boring and cheap.I fell asleep twice and actually decided to not bother with the last 5 minutes as I assumed the actors would have fallen asleep themselves by then. More unrecoverable life time wasted!If you must watch it, then take it to the bedroom and forget the sleeping pills for once. But maybe you'll need an antidepressant instead!Sometimes it's good if celluloid degrades.$LABEL$ 0
+Fritz Lang directed two great westerns: "Western Union" and "The Return of Frank James". The Frank James movie equals "Jesse James". "Western Union" is one of Randolph Scott's great westerns. I have never seen Robert Young in a western before; he is terrific as the telegraph employee. This is the only movie I can think of that is about the telegraph company opening up in the west. It is a high-geared story about the telegraph in the west, a triangle love story, and about loyalty. The supporting cast is superb. Dean Jagger, who made a few westerns, plays the telegraph manager. Virginia Gilmore, who plays Mr. Jagger's sister, is the love interest in the movie. Ms. Gilmore had a short career in movies. She quit films in 1952 and became a drama coach. She is primarily known as the first Mrs. Yul Brynner. It is great to see Slim Summerville in a movie with Mr. Scott again. They were in two other great movies: "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" and "Jesse James".$LABEL$ 1
+Another variation and improvisation on the famous and beloved children tale, La Bete (1975) aka The Beast tries to imagine (in very graphic and what may seem offensive and disturbing but in reality rather silly and comical way), what actually happened between Beauty and the Beast? I am amused by many reviews and comments that seem to look too deeply into this movie. I would not go so far as saying that it is a serious and dark exploration of such subjects as sexual frustration, longing, fulfillment, or satirical criticizing of the catholic Religion. I would not even call it a horror-erotic movie. It's more of the parody on all genres it touches or mentions even though it's got some shocking moments in all departments that sure will stay in your memory.The long (way too long) scene between an Aristocratic young woman and the supposedly horrifying but the most laughable I've ever seen in the movies creature with truly impressive...well anatomy, is set to the clavichord music of Scarlatti and is hysterical. My husband and I both laughed out loud at the exaggerated details of the encounter. The moral of the scene is - beauty can and will defeat the monster. The question is - who is the target audience for the film? For an erotic picture, it is too verbose; for an art movie - it's got too many jaw-dropping scenes of sheer madness and I'd say an abrupt ending. IMO, the film creator did not mean for it to be a serious drama. As a parody of art house/horror/erotica, it is funny and certainly original. Have a good laugh and try not to look for some deep meaning. This story of the curious Beauties and the lustful Beasts certainly is not recommended for co-viewing with the children. The opening scene that may shock an unprepared viewer much more than the infamous scene of bestiality can be successfully used On Discovery channel for the program like "In the world of animals - mating habits and rituals of horses".$LABEL$ 0
+Wow. Simply awful. I was a fan of the original movie, and begrudgingly sat through part 2, 3 was and improvement. 4,5 and Freddy's Dead were pretty bad. But NOTHING is as bad as Freddy's Nightmares. Freddy acts as a Rod Serlingesq host of this anthology series.I can accept how Freddy became one punchline after another, but at least in the movies the appeal of Freddy carried the movies, but here these were so poorly made, they looked like high school productions of a horror series. The poor actors, if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. I'm nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. Ones just starting on the Hollywood ladder, brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week, or seasoned actors on their way down the Hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week.I half expected Dana Plato to guest star, but she was already dead by the time this was in production.To paraphrase Nancy's line in the original Elm St,"What ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this."$LABEL$ 0
+The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...$LABEL$ 0
+The producer, Matt Mochary, stumbled upon the film's subject, Anderson Sa (leader of the AfroReggae music movement), when on a Hewlett Foundation trip to Rio de Janeiro. Mochary was so moved by Sa's story that he called his friend, NYC filmmaker Jim Zimbalist, who quit his job and joined Mochary in Brazil to work on a documentary on Sa, Rio's favelas, and the culture of violence.The first part of the film shows you the culture of violence in Rio's favelas (shantytowns where the poor live) via footage of police raids and assaults on the residents. The footage is graphic and shocking.Rising from the negativity of the favelas is the charismatic Anderson Sa, who overcame a possible career in drug dealing to start the AfroReggae movement, which combines elements of Afro-Brazilian culture, Reggae, ska, and other elements into a fast-paced, percussion heavy style of music which has since spread to other parts of the world. You can't help but be carried away by the music, especially when you see the local children get involved in Sa's school, which he founded to keep kids out of drug gangs. The rest of the film follows Sa's meteoric rise and his positivity changes many of the children's lives to seek a life beyond drug running. SPOILER: Just when the filmmakers thought they had wrapped filming, an unbelievable life changing event occurs of which the resolution has to be seen to be believed. The film then continues and you are gripped in your seat until the end.This film is a response to "City of God," and a worthy one at that. The bleak situation portrayed in that movie is countered by a real example of how favela dwellers can overcome the dire situation they are in and use their resources to constructive ends. You can't help not liking and rooting for Anderson Sa to succeed.This film is terrifically shot, fast-paced, and is quite absorbing. Judging by the overwhelming response of the audience at last night's SilverDocs screening, the film should get domestic distribution in the US and the thumping soundtrack should be released as well. Keep an eye for this superlative documentary--it is excellent!$LABEL$ 1
+Anyone looking to learn more about the development of skateboarding should find Dogtown and Z-Boys adequate research material. This is not to be confused with Lords of Dogtown, that sorry Hollywood attempt to cash in on the success of the original Dogtown revival. Directed by Stacey Peralta, a former Z-Boys himself as well as pro skater and mastermind behind the 80s Bones Brigade, and co-written with skateboarding photojournalist Craig Stecyk, this documentary traces how a group of surfing kids from Southern California's mean streets (known as Dogtown) who formed the Z-Boys skateboard team (actually there was one girl--Peggy Oki) revolutionized skateboarding. The film contains interviews from nearly all of the Z-Boys (Chris Cahill's whereabouts are unknown) with the most noteable being bad ass Tony Alva and the youngest, Jay Adams, who's talents (along with Perlata) seemed to transcend the rest of the teams. There are interviews of the team's (and the Dogtown shop) founders, surfboard designer Jeff Ho, Skip Engbloom, and Craig Stecyk. There are also interviews of folks like Tony Hawk (obviously), Ian McKaye (Fugazi), and Henry Rollins, who were young kids in the 70s when Dogtown was making it's influence on skateboarding (skateboarding was a whole other context in previous years as the documentary explains). It really shows you not only who the Dogtown team was and how they formed, but why their style changed not only skateboarding tricks (pool skating became immensley popular, and thus gave way to vert skating), but also facilitated the sport (though not into the extreme commercialism it is today) as more than just the fleeting fad it had been earlier as these surfing kids who's waves ran out in the early morning needed ways to spend their time and eventually got into skateboarding. The days of Russ Howell and Alan Gelfand were long over as the Dogtown, at least through the publicity of their skate team, paved the way for the new generation of skaters. Because Dogtown got all the attention, they were able to push skating to the next step.It's a great documentary in the way that it is put together, though Stacey Peralta always knew how to do this even when producing the Bones Brigade mini movies/skate demos like "Ban This" and "Search for Animal Chin." Narrated by Sean Penn, the film is accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack, contains lots of terrific archive footage, and lots of interview to give you a genuine feel of who the Z-Boys were and how they made their mark on skateboarding.$LABEL$ 1
+The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Co-directed by and starring Rutger Hauer, this film short was based on a short story by Dutch writer Harry Murlisch.In the 10 minutes of the film's length you will get to see a life-time as 'Harry' unravels his long-time fascination with a room he passes constantly in his youth. Returning to the city many years later he finds he has rented the same room.Using black and white film the textures are accentuated in this delicate telling of a tale. The voice of 'Harry' drawing you into his world.A subtle, tight performance from Rutger Hauer and 2 non-speaking characters. Wonderful soundtrack by Dutch musician Dyzack.At the moment difficult to see this movie as it is only available on DVD region 2 "L'infidele" (Liv Ullman) as a bonus track. But is due to be on the re-released DVD of "The Hitcher" - another tight, but very different performance from Hauer!See this film if you can!$LABEL$ 1
+Together with the even more underrated , The Sun Shines Bright, Wagon Master was one of Ford's favorite films. It is a western of exceptional beauty and narrative purity, well acted by members of Ford's 'stock company', including Jane Darwell, Alan Mowbray, Ward Bond,and Harry Carey, Jr.Like almost all of Ford's films,it is a meditation on freedom and community. It is also noteworthy for a much more positive portrayal of Indians than in most of Ford's movies. Ford, for all his faults, remains the supreme poet of American Democracy.$LABEL$ 1
+Love hurts. That, I think, is the main message Mike Binder's newest film Reign Over Me brings across. Whether that love has caused your relationship to become stagnant, or has brought anger from the one you love cheating for years, or has broken your heart to the point of being unable to open yourself up to the world, love hurts. The great thing about this film, however, is not in its portrayal of these lost souls trying to let their past heartbreaks go, but in the eventual restart of new bonds for the future. No one in this drama is perfect; they are all at some degree trapped emotionally in relationships that they can't free themselves from alone. There is some heavy subject material here and I credit Binder for never making the story turn into a political diatribe, but instead infusing the serious moments with some real nice comedic bits allowing the tale to stay character-based and small in scale compared to the epic event that looms overhead. What could have become a trite vehicle for opinions on how 9-11 effected us all, ends up being a story about two men and a connection they share that is the only thing which can save their lives from a life of depression and regret.This is a new career performance for Adam Sandler. I like to think that my favorite director Paul Thomas Anderson was the first to see the childish, pent-up anger in his stupid comedies as something to use dramatically. The juvenility of a character like Billy Madison allows for laughs and potty humor, but also can be used to show a repressed man, shy and shutout to the world around him—a man with no confidence that needs an event of compassion to break him from his shell. Anderson let Sandler do just that in his masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love and Mike Binder has taken it one step further. Sandler plays former dentist Charlie Fineman whose wife and three kids were killed in one of the planes that took down the World Trade Center on 9-11. That one moment crushed any life that he had and as a result, he became reclusive and started to believe he couldn't remember anything that happened before that day. He really delivers a moving portrait of a man trying to keep up the charade in his head while those around him, those that love him, try and open him up to the reality of what happened and what the future holds. Always on edge and ready to snap at any moment when something is mentioned to spark the memory of his perished family, he goes through life with his iPod and headphones, shutting out everything so as not to be tempted remember.Reign Over Me is not about Charlie Fineman though, it is about dentist and family man Alan Johnson. A man that has trapped himself into a marriage and dental practice that both have stagnated into monotony, Johnson needs as much help in his life as his old college roommate Charlie does. Played perfectly by the always brilliant Don Cheadle, Johnson has lost his backbone to try and change his life. He has no friends and when he sees Charlie, by chance, one day, his life evolves into something he hasn't felt in 15 years. He revels in the chance to go out with an old friend no matter how much he has changed from the death of his family. Cheadle's character wants to revert back to the college days of hanging out and Sandler's doesn't mind because all that was before he met his wife. The two men get what they want and allow themselves to grow close despite the years of solitude that used to rule their lives. Once they begin opening up though, it is inevitable that the subject of the tragedy will creep up and test the façade they have created for themselves.The supporting cast does an amazing job helping keep up appearances for the two leads. Jada Pinkett Smith has never been an actress that impressed me and throughout the film played the tough as nails wife nicely, but it is her final scene on the phone with Cheadle that really showed me something different and true. Liv Tyler is a bit out of her element as a psychiatrist, but the movie calls her on this fact and makes the miscasting, perfect casting. The many small cameos are also effective, even writer/director Mike Binder's role as Sandler's old best friend and accountant, (my only gripe here is why he feels the need to put his name in the opening credits as an actor when it is everywhere, considering it is his film). Last but not least is the beautiful Saffron Burrows. She is a great actress and plays the love- crushed divorcée trying to put her life back together wonderfully. A role that seems comic relief at first, but ends up being an integral aspect for what is to come.Binder has crafted one of the best dramatic character studies I have seen in a long time. The direction is almost flawless, (the blurring between cuts and characters in the fore/ background really annoyed me in the beginning), the acting superb, and the story true to itself, never taking the easy way out or wrapping itself up with a neatly tied bow at the conclusion. Even the music was fantastic and used to enhance, not to lead us emotionally, (why after two great uses of the titular song by The Who did Binder feel the need to use the inferior Eddie Veddar remake for the end, I don't know, but it did unfortunately stick out for me). Reign Over Me is a film about love and how although it can cause the worst pain imaginable, it can also save us from regret and allow us to once again see the world as a place of beauty and hope.$LABEL$ 1
+Alright so this episode makes fun of Al Gore. I'm sure it pisses a few liberals off. The thing is South Park makes fun of everybody, much like the Simpsons did. If you get offended that a politician you like is made fun of then maybe you need a better sense of humor and are taking the show too seriously. With that being said this episode is hilarious and one of the best. Al Gores portrayal is hilarious, Cartman's scheme goes terribly wrong and the results will have you rolling on the floor laughing. It is basically everything you would ever want out of a south park episode and it is easily one of my favorites. I'll won't comment too much further on the plot because I don't want to give anything away.$LABEL$ 1
+A young doctor and his wife are suddenly expecting a child. Both are disturbed about a two hour memory lapse on the night of conception. Interesting twist on an hackneyed story. Very good F/X and interesting editing. Jillian McWhirter is outstanding in a cast that features Arnold Vosloo, Wilford Brimley and Brad Dourif. Brimley brings normalcy to the outlandish. Kudos to director Brian Yuzna.$LABEL$ 0
+Ida Lupino was one of the few women to break through the directorial glass ceiling in Hollywood under the studio system. Not surprisingly, she also tackled proto-feminist themes that, when touched at all, were approached in so gingerly a manner that it was seldom quite clear what was being talked about. In Outrage, she treats rape and its aftermath, and though throughout the short movie it's referred to as `criminal assault,' she leaves, for once, no doubt about what happened.Mala Powers (in her official debut) plays a secretary-bookkeeper at a big industrial plant; she lives with her parents but is engaged to a swell guy (Robert Clarke), who just got a raise and now makes $90 a week. Leaving the plant after working late one night, she finds herself being stalked. In the ensuing scene – the best in the movie – she tries to escape her pursuer in a forbidding maze of buildings and alleys but fails.When she returns home, disheveled and in shock, the police can't get much out of her; she claims she never saw her attacker (who manned a snack truck outside the factory). Trying to pretend that nothing happened, she returns to her job but falls apart, thinking that everybody is staring at her, judging her. She goes into a fugue state, running away to Los Angeles on a bus but stumbling off at a rest stop. Waking up in a strange ranch house, she learns that she's been rescued by Tod Andrews, a young minister in a California agricultural town. She lies about her identity and takes a job packing oranges. The two fall vaguely in love, but it's clear to Andrews that Powers is keeping dire secrets. When, at a company picnic, she seizes a wrench and cracks the skull of Jerry Paris, who was trying to steal a kiss, the truth about her past comes out....It was a courageous movie to come out in 1950, and that may explain and excuse some of its shortcomings. Lupino never recaptures the verve of the early assault scene, and the movie wanders off into the bucolic and sentimental, ending up talky and didactic. Yes, Lupino had important information to impart, but she didn't trust the narrative to speak for itself. Her cast, pleasant but bland and generic, weren't much help, either, reverting to melodramatic postures or homespun reassurance. But Outrage was a breakthrough, blazing a trail for later discourse on what the crime of rape really is, and what it really means to its victims.$LABEL$ 1
+This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called "philosophic" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay$LABEL$ 0
+A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, so I just saw the movie, although it appeared last year... I thought that it was generally a decent movie, except for the storyline, which was stupid and horrible... First of all, we never get to know anything about the creatures, why they appeared, wtf are they doing in our world, and really, have they been on Earth before we were or did they just come from space? Secondly, the role of the butcher to maintain order is just so obviously created... Really, how large could the underground for a sub station could have been? There were only so many of those creatures, so I think instead of killing innocent people in vain, they could have just planted some tactical bombs, or maybe clear the are and a Nuke would have done the job. I know it sounds funny and it is, but I do not see the killing of people as being NECESSARY... Thirdly, Leon acts like Superman jumping on the train and fighting Vinnie Jones, who was way taller and bigger in stature. Then again, when he faces the conductor he does nothing and acts as a wimp, watching all the abominations. I mean OK, the conductor had creepy help(lol), but if Leon was so brave he would have gone all the way... I mean he risks his life first, then does nothing exactly when he should have. He could have died as a hero but lives as a coward... this might be the case, but not after showing so much braveness earlier on... Then, the cop thing... come on! This was a city having a subway, I bet there must have been other cops except that lady, other police stations,this was really kind of silly... All in all, great acting by Vinnie Jones, interesting idea up to the reason behind it which is not really built at all... By the way, what did the signs on the chest mean? Vinnie Jones cannot make up for the rest...$LABEL$ 0
+We now travel to a parallel universe where the appearance of giant prehistoric monsters flattening cities are part of the daily routine. It's the world of Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra Ghidrah and their kind - a strange world, and one made even stranger by the appearance of an unidentified flying turtle called Gamera.Forever in the shadow of the monolithic Toho Studios, second rung Daiei Studios were more famous for samurai sagas than monster movies. In the mid 60s they decided to join the giant reptile race and designed a rival monster series to Toho's mammothly successful Godzilla. They wisely chose Gamera as their flagship - a giant turtle that shoots flames from between its snaggle-teeth, and spins through the air by shooting flames through its shell's feet-holes (and at one point you almost see the paper mache shell catch fire!).The first Gamera film "Gamera The Invincible" (as it was sold to the US) is a virtual mirror of the first Godzilla film, only 10 years behind. American fighters chase an unmarked plane over the Arctic to its fiery demise - the nuclear bomb on board ignites and awakens the giant Gamera from its icy slumber. Feeding off atomic energy, it immediately goes on a rampage, and the world wants to destroy Gamera once and for all, but a little Japanese boy named Kenny, who has a psychic connection with the giant turtle and even keeps a miniature version in an aquarium by his bedside, believes Gamera is essentially kind and benevolent. He's like a little Jewish kid with a pinup of Hitler. "Gamera is a GOOD turtle," he pleads, then sulks, and puts on a face like someone's pooped in his coco pops. Miraculously the world's leaders listen to him, and so begins Z-Plan to save the world AND Gamera from complete destruction.Released in 1965, Gamera was a surprising hit. The annoying infantile anthropomorphism actually worked on kiddie audiences in both Japan and the US, and the sight of Gamera on two feet stomping miniatures of Tokyo and the North Pole is gloriously chintzy. Most surprising of all is the longevity of the series: eight original Gamera films, plus a slew of recent remakes. Not bad for a mutant reptile whose only friend is mewing eight year old milquetoast - and if I hear "Gamera is friends to ALL children" one more time I'M going to crush Tokyo. Which appears to be an easy task in the parallel universe where children are smart and turtles are bigger than a Seiko billboard in the 1965 turtle-fest Gamera.$LABEL$ 0
+There are interesting pieces here of and about Bruce Weber's likes and dislikes. Maybe if a professional editor had put it together for Biography, I would have felt more satisfied. Instead, I spent $8 at a film festival on it. For an autobiography, almost nothing is revealed about Bruce Weber, other than he likes to look at photographs, shoot interesting people, especially beautiful teenage boys, and listen to jazz. The director of "Crumb" would have made a much more interesting and cohesive film.$LABEL$ 0
+Gregory Peck and Gig Young are competing for the same girl and after Peck sends Young on a very dangerous mission, they blame him for his reasons. Feeling guilty, Peck goes on an almost impossible task of defending a fort, where they are outnumbered by the Indians. Peck chooses for this mission soldiers which he considers to be the scum of the earth and the actors that play these soldiers, Ward Bond, Lon Chaney Jr., Neville Brand among others, are excellent. The script is derived from a novel by Charles Marquis Warren who was a specialist in westerns, as a writer, director and producer. The idea of using this type of men as heroes inspired many films that came out later including "The Dirty Dozen" made in 1967.$LABEL$ 1
+Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of "serious Woody," Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time. Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last "scoop" about the identity of the notorious "Tarot killer." Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes "from his point of view we're scum." A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King," compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's "alma mater" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: "I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism." And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: "If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise." All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade.$LABEL$ 1
+If I watch a movie and don't once look at my watch or clock to see how much longer it will be running or when I hope that the last scene wasn't the end of the movie, it's got to be pretty good. I'm not an movie internalist or cinema dissectionist. I watch movies and if they keep me interested till the end, then they are pretty good because some of the most critically acclaimed films bore me to death (The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Atonement, Crash. This movie kept me interested and absorbed beginning to end. Acting is great, story is absolutely original, flash-back technique very affective. There was a bit of Citizen Kane thrown in tho when Hoffman trashes his apartment after Tomei leaves him, but I forgive that cause I see it as a homage to, rather than a rip-off of, Orson.$LABEL$ 1
+Mullholland Drive proves once again that David Lynch is the Master of cinematic expression. At the screening last night I witnessed a brilliant addition to the history of cinema. The performances are astounding, the score entrancing, and the photography mesmerizing. David's ability to weave the many elements of film making into a unique and stunning cinematic experience is unequalled. As I watched Mullholland Drive I couldn't help but realize that with David Lynch in this world we are truly blessed. The cinema is blessed as well for, in the films of David Lynch, we are shown that one man's vision can be realized with stunning results. We realize that blockbusters are not the only path. We realize that a true cinematic artist has a chance in this world and in that we are blessed indeed.$LABEL$ 1
+What a disappointment! I've enjoyed the Jon Cleary books about Scobie Malone, but there's little resemblance between him and the cinematic Malone. In the books he's a city detective, who is devoted to his wife and doesn't get involved in fisticuffs. For the film the character has been spiced up, into an outback copper who uses his fists and isn't averse to jumping into bed with a gorgeous girl, though quite what she and the film's other sex interest see in him I don't know; Taylor was 39 at the time and his face was getting puffy.But his character's stamina is remarkable; he flies in from Australia, apparently goes straight to the Commissioner's house (rather unwisely seeking to arrest him during a black-tie reception), saves him from assassination (getting into a fight in the process), goes to a casino with one girl, leaves with another and takes her to bed. So much for jet lag! On the way back to the Commissioner's house (showing a good knowledge of London back streets), he gets beaten up by the baddies, but is still first down to breakfast! It's also remarkable that the commissioner's limo has its windscreen and headlights miraculously repaired within minutes of the assassination attempt and that one character has a touching faith in the precise timekeeping of a clock-activated bomb.The best thing is Joseph the Butler's disdain for the uncouth Malone. And at least the film avoids being a London travelogue, though some scenes take place during the Wimbledon tennis week.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm trying to decide if jumping into a wood chopper would be more enjoyable than this dreck. It finishes the destruction of what was once a classic couple of films. With Jedi, Menace, Clowns and Sith we have the death of Lucas' career. He wants us to swallow the Annakin is Vader nonsense? I never believed it was true. This film vindicates those feelings. The story hasn't worked since Phantom Moron, and each new film just piled the crap on until all that was left was a toy parade. I have to go. I know where some new rocks to throw are. You want spoilers? Here they come. Luke and Leia are NOT related. Vader is NOT their Father. Duke Countoo should have switched sides while he still could. Yoda has less verbal skills than Yogi Berra. His advice has never been any good to anybody. Obi Wan lied to Luke for the first two films. Annakin didn't build C3P0. He found him in the desert and lied to his Mom about putting him together from scratch. Chewbacca has fleas. This whole mess with Vader and the fall of the Republic can be blamed on that stupid b***h Amma-Lamma-Ding-Dong. If she had any brains she wouldn't have come within a light year of Annie, but she had told do what George Lucas wrote for her. What a dope!$LABEL$ 0
+Hoot is a nice plain movie with a simple message. It seemed like that this film was for young children, but I know that adults will like this film. The storyline is pretty simple. A kid who moved to Florida must help a soccer jock and an outcast save burrowing owls from construction of a pancake house. The message in this film is big especially for animal activists and lovers. The message is about doing all you can to save endangered animals. The acting in this film is decent. All the three kids looked like they had good chemistry. The music is not too shabby. I liked Jimmy Buffet's songs in this film. Overall this is a good family film. I rate this film a 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Gore hounds beware...this is not your movie. This little nail bitter has very little blood and guts. Its basically a version of Open Water that is effective and worthwhile. But what sets it apart is that we actually like the three leads (unlike Open Water) who find themselves up a tree when a crocodile flips their fishing boat and munches up their guide. We don't want any harm to come to any of them. SO when they start getting into dangerous situations...we actually care. Now I like killer animal flicks but I haven't been too impressed with Lake Placid up to Primeval (although I'm still waiting to see Rogue and hoping it is somewhere as good as this one!) but this little bugger did the job and did the job well. It's scares are creative and it only lapses into the run of the mill frantic crying sobbing and arguing for brief stints of realism so I never got annoyed. I remember reading the true story that inspired this where three guys went fishing and two ended up in a tree while their buddy was killed by the crocodile . But the thing that always impacted me that gets left out from the film was that the crocodile didn't eat up the buddy. No. For hours and hours he swam around the tree and shook the dead body still in his mouth at the friends in the tree. Seeming to stay, if you come down here this is what will happen to you.$LABEL$ 1
+A gaggle of unpleasant city dwellers descend on Le Touquet for a week's holiday. Stories intertwine, characters fight, make friends, deceive each other, have sex...Blanc has gathered together a stellar cast for his adaptation of Connolly's book, but to little avail. What should be hilarious is instead at turns tedious and irritating. All the characters are either pathetic or unpleasant or both, and in the end, despite the farcical nature of things, this viewer was left caring little about what happens to any of them.Credit to the always wonderful Rampling, plus Bouquet and Viard but that's it. And Dutronc looks like he's rather overdone the nips and tucks, if you ask me...$LABEL$ 0
+I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+This must be the most boring film I ever saw. The only positive I can say about it is that thankfully I didn't pay to see it. We were given a free showing in school and everyone in the audience just sat there embarrassed wondering when the fun would start. This piece of junk is a badly filmed, way too long film. The actual idea on why making the movie took about 10 seconds to present. The only ones who can be interested in this film are those who lost their jobs and want to know why. They might find some of the interviews interesting. A different edit might have made an interesting documentary of this, but I doubt it, the interviews shown were not engaging in any way. As it is, it is just a tragedy, both to behold and to be a part of. AVOID THIS FILM AT ANY COST!$LABEL$ 0
+Not just the money we paid to rent it or actually go to the movies. I'm talking about how big productions companies waste so much money in things that actually are boring and not to talk about ridiculous. With the millions they used to make a movie like this, because I don't think the actors here would actually work for free or for an insignificant sum. With that money imagine how many good independent movies you could make, or maybe one good Hollywood movie. Its just to rip you off, but not anyone, just the majority of teens that are willing to go and see an Ashton Kutcher movie, just because they are fans of him. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. If you actually look at it in prospective the actors are the same quality of this movie. So i guess I shouldn't be surprise, I actually couldn't have expected more.$LABEL$ 0
+The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie "based" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, "witchcraft" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship "an'-it-harm-none" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.$LABEL$ 0
+First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of "them." Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered. While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this "oversight" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand. Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about "Fargo") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of "a mistake" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka "Meatloaf") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message."Focus'" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses.$LABEL$ 1
+Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this film in Winnipeg recently - appropriate, given the location used. I first read Lawrence's book back in the 70's and for me, it's always been a very powerful picture of the trials of aging in our society. It resonated when I was young, and it resonates even more now. When the film came out, I was keen to see if the story could survive. and was thoroughly impressed, especially with Ellen Burstyn's performance. She manages to give us a complete human being, even though the character is generally cranky and judgmental - someone that you wouldn't want to live with. It's great to be able to see favourite characters come to life so authentically.$LABEL$ 1
+Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't find anything positive to say about this movie (if this production is even worthy of that word). This production is not even the standard of a low budget porn-movie!My question is simply: why did someone look at the script and think "Hey I'm gonna make a movie out of this"?At the end of the movie I wasn't even hoping that "Nicole" was going to make it…. She was really that annoying!So for your own sake, do not watch this movie... unless you want to waste 85 minutes of your life...$LABEL$ 0
+***LIGHT SPOILER ALERT*** The story sounds good and if you've read the novel, then you're probably expecting a deep and intense movie that could offer some insight for some interesting and insufficiently explored human relationships.True enough, the script tries to do that, the director tries to do that, but the main cast fails miserably. Maria's acting is so dry that lacks any feeling whatsoever, her most intense moments seem almost comical. Sometimes she seems to be nervous due to the camera. Her only really feeling scene is near the end where she gets dumped by her girlfriend.Ioana seems even more tense than Maria and even worse, she doesn't seem natural at all. Maria had the attitude, even if it was artificially pushed towards being obvious, but she had it and her character received some credibility. And to make matters worse, we don't have an insight on her: where does she come from, how come she got involved in the lesbian relationship, how did the relationship evolve? We only get some bits from her parents and their relationship just seems to 'be' there: it has a content and and end, but no beginning. Just like her partner Maria, she has only once scene that is truly touching, the scene where she dumps Maria's character Kiki.Tudor is the only person in this movie (aside from the landlady, great acting there) who manages to prove some acting talent. He has his character's attitude and it fits him. Only once or twice he seems to falter (the scene at his parents' meal, he tries to be obvious when it wasn't necessary at all).I love the story, Tudor Chirila is OK there, the landlady actually acts and Puya delivers his couple of lines with style, but this doesn't save the movie. Too bad, the entire setting had huge potential and the Romanian cinematography could've used a movie on this theme.Oddly enough, the incestuous relationship between brother and sister seems to have more credibility than the no-background no-feeling (well, Maria's spoken interludes are a nice try in this direction) lesbian relationship of Maria and Ioana. I'm quite sorry for spending money on a ticket, I'd rather had watched it from the comfort of my room.$LABEL$ 0
+I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.$LABEL$ 0
+Completely worth checking out. Saw it on MLK's birthday 2006 and it hit me big time. Sometimes it feels like we're all in a trap and are doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we try to change. All we can do is to keep on going and speaking out. Just keep on going. Don't mean to be a downer because that's not the point but maybe we need to get down before we see how much we need to work on ourselves. What happens when we keep being told by the best people like MLK what needs to happen to pull us out of our "dead end road" but we don't listen. I know that some of us do listen but how do we get the rest of the world to see things as they really are? Just keep going, I guess. This movie got me thinking even more about all of this so I guess it has done what it set out to do. That's what I consider to be a good movie or play or book or poem or speech or anything: something that gets you thinking and keyed up to move in an active direction instead of sitting stuck and bored and hopeless.$LABEL$ 1
+Webs starts in 'Chicago: Present Day' as four electricians, Dean (Richard Grieco), Ray (Richard Yearwood), Sheldon (Jeffrey Douglas) & Junior (Jason Jones) are about to disconnect the electric to an unused building scheduled for demolition. As they search for the relevant cables & stuff they come across a set of doors that according to the buildings blue-prints shouldn't be there, being nosey & all that they force the doors open to have a look & find a room full of computers & scientific machinery. As they mess around with some buttons a portal to a parallel universe opens, Dean & Junior accidentally 'fall' in with Ray & Sheldon following soon after in search of their friends. Unfortunately they've all ended up in an exact parallel Earth that has been taken over by a mutant spider thing that either eats people or turns them into mutant soldiers with which she uses to protect herself & do whatever she wants them to really. In a desperate bid for survival they team up with a few of the last remaining humans including the original inventor of the portal Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox) who says that with the help of our electrician boys he might (yeah might) be able to build another portal to take them back home...Edited & directed by David Wu I thought Webs was pretty crap, it's as simple & straight forward as that really. The script by Grenville Case & Robinson Young is preposterous to say the least & has plot holes in it you could drive a tank through, for instance is this film really trying to suggest that a few mutant spider things no bigger than a couple of people in size took over an entire world? How did they do this? If this parallel Earth was the same as ours where the hell was the army? The police? All of our weapons? A few fragile looking spider things against literally billions of humans?! The whole flawed, stupid & downright naff concept constantly bugged me throughout the entire film. Lets not forget that there is a inter-dimensional portal to a parallel Earth in the basement of most buildings that have sat there undisturbed for decades & remain in perfect working order, right? Then there's the nuclear reactor the size of a briefcase, the fact one electrician can make it work perfectly purely by accident as he randomly presses a few buttons in a room that probably had 100's spread over dozens of pieces of equipment & what about the wonderfully thoughtful guy who sets an explosive bobby trap in his base without telling anyone, what if one of his mates had set it off & found themselves blown to pieces by their mates homemade bomb? You wouldn't be best pleased would you? What about food? Do they grow their own in little vegetable patches? I could go on & on all day long about how flawed, ill conceived & poorly written Webs is but I can't be bothered. The character's are clichéd & annoying as is the film as a whole which obviously doesn't help. The only half decent thing I can say about Webs is that it's short & it moves along at a fair pace but when all said & done it's still crap.Director Wu has to take a large chunck of the blame here, for a start the film looks cheap & the editing that he is credited with is terrible. There's lots of annoying inappropriate slow motion shots that come from nowhere, the action scenes are almost identical & become incredibly boring very quickly. He uses that highly annoying quick cut technique along with a bit of the old jerky camera movement, now I don't know about anyone else but I hate this editing style as it just looks a complete incoherent mess. In fact I don't know a single person who does like this sort of thing & I'm puzzled as to why filmmakers think people do. Forget about any gore, just a few shotgun wounds to the spider zombie soldier guys & they don't have red blood anyway so it doesn't relate to reality in my mind.Webs was made-for-TV, the American Sci-Fi Channel I think & it looks every bit as cheap, low budget & rushed as you would expect. It's all so bland, forgettable, flat & dull. The special effects are far from special & the spider thing lacks imagination when finally revealed. The acting was OK considering everything else was so poor & I still can't believe the sweater Grieco was wearing in this.Webs is crap, I can't really say anything good about it other than I've sat through worse films & that's the sole reason I'm not giving it 1 star & a quick glance at the IMDb user ratings for Webs confirms what I already knew in that it has more '1' votes than any other & there is very good reason why...$LABEL$ 0
+When an actor has to play the role of an actor, fictional or factual, the task becomes much more difficult than playing a role. In A Double Life,Ronald Coleman surpassed himself as Anthony John, the tortured double personality. He put into that character all his talent and sincerity. The facial expressions, mannerisms,gait and stance spoke eloquently of what Anthony John was going through while playing Othello on stage. Coleman also did extremely well as a Shakespearean actor in those short scenes as Othello that were part of this gem of a movie. Closups of Coleman's face as Othello tortured by doubts about the fidelity of Desdemona were in themselves scenes worth watching.Add to that, his character's off stage desperation and only someone with Coleman's depth of acting perception can achieve. It was like watching Spenser Tracy as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, except this double role was much more profound and poignant. Shelly Winters looked so sweet, vulnerable and gorgeous at the same time and added her talent to the movie. It is believed that Ronald Coleman liked his role in this film above all others he played and went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor in 1947. I would see this movie repeatedly and never feel bored.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.$LABEL$ 0
+First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the "Uncle's" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the "Dragon Head Baton", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more. Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be.$LABEL$ 1
+We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.$LABEL$ 0
+Got to confess right up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. I missed the first hour during a Sci Fi Channel broadcast. Or was I spared the first hour? The other reviewers sum this one up nicely. It was badly conceived. Badly scripted. Badly acted.But the worst thing for me was the ADR. The entire film, which appeared to have been dubbed, sounded like it was done in somebody's garage. There was a voluminous echo to the words, which just served to make the bad dialog hang. And hang. And hang. Even a made for TV movie should have recognized this.And the idea that alternate dimensions are differentiated by color saturation went out in the 80s, folks.$LABEL$ 0
+The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?$LABEL$ 0
+At first i didn't think that Ben Affleck could really pull off a funny Christmas movie,, boy was i wrong, my daughter invited me to watch this with her and i was not disappointed at all. James Gandolfini was funny,, i really liked Christina Appelagate, and Catherine O' Hara was good too, the storyline is what really sold me,, i mean,, too put up with family,, at the table for people you only hardly see but once or twice a year,, and probably don't get along with anyway,, you really do need as much alcohol as you're system can stand to deal with Christmas,, so i thought that the premise was good there, buying the family with 250000 dollars, was a little on the far fetched side,, but it turned out to work pretty good for me,, cause it was a riot all the way through, it shows the class struggle of the different families. it has lot's of funny moments, including embarrassing stuff on the computer for a teenage boy. all in all i loved this movie and will watch it again next Christmas or sooner if my daughter wants too.$LABEL$ 1
+Frankly i just enjoy watching James Caan. Wonderful actor. With such simplicity you know exactly what he's thinking. A true pro.I have watched the show from the very beginning and found it different - that's something that is unique in Hollywood - a new idea - not a 3rd version of a current hit show - I also find the show fun and exciting -I like the pacing - you're never bored - I especially like the mystery in each episode - the way it unfolds. I am a big mystery fan and have read a lot of the great mysteries but I find the stories in the show well written and the outcome is rarely obvious. Also extremely interesting to me, probably because I am not a gambler, is the different cons that the 'gamblers' come up with - I was fascinated by the number of schemes that people have come up with to rob Las Vegas. The music: I like the music at the top of the show. Absolutely perfect for the show...Sets the tone and atmosphere . Just marvelous. And of course, there is James Caan.$LABEL$ 1
+No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.$LABEL$ 0
+A widely unknown strange little western with mindblowing colours (probably the same material as it was used in "Johnny Guitar", I guess "Trucolor" or something, which makes blood drips look like shining rubies), nearly surrealistic scenes with twisted action and characters. Something different, far from being a masterpiece, but there should be paid more attention to this little gem in western encyclopedias.$LABEL$ 1
+note to George Litman, and others: the Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff is "I don't think so, *breeder*".my favorite riff is "Why were you looking at his 'like'?", simply for the complete absurdity. that, and "Right well did not!" over all, I would say we must give credit to the MST3K crew for trying to ridicule this TV movie. you really can't make much fun of the dialog; Bill S was a good playwright. on the other hand, this production is so bad that even he would disown it. a junior high school drama club could do better.I would recommend that you buy a book and read 'Hamlet'.$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed the movie very much. Everything in The Italian Job is simple. An explosive guy, a safe-cracker, a computer genius, a wheel-man and a man with a spectacular plan of stealing 35 million without using a gun. This film is entertaining although it has no central idea. It is a non-stop movie with lots of actions. All the stunt work is gorgeous. From the speedboat chase in Venice at the beginning to the chase on the busy roads in Los Angeles involving three mini coopers and even a helicopter. The best boast chase I have ever seen. I like the mini coopers. The expert thieves used mini coopers for the getaway cars. The chase between the mini coopers and the motor-bikes is amazing. They chased underground. I can say there was not a moment I was bored. Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Left Ear) and Edwin Norton (Steve) really did a good job. I like the actors in this film. I have seen a lot of heist movie but The Italian Job& is one of my favourites. A great Hollywood action movie without a drop of blood. After all, I do love this kind of movie.$LABEL$ 1
+When this show first came on the air, I saw it once or twice and thought it was another "fat guy, skinny wife" show that seemed to populate the networks at the time. It was just "okay" upon initial viewings and I didn't watch it again; however, once it went into syndication, I caught several episodes (simply because it was on twice a night), and I'm telling you, the more you watch this show, the funnier it is. Once you see how all of the great supporting characters are connected, this show makes you laugh out loud. Every new episode I watch is more creative than the one before--people who only watch this a couple of times will not notice this. The writing and story lines are much more sophisticated than they appear at first (this is far from "According to Jim"). First of all, Kevin James is hysterical, incredibly charming, and a talented comedic actor, as is the supporting cast. Leah Remini has excellent timing, and Patton Oswalt's Spence is one of the funnier characters on the show. And of course, Jerry Stiller is brilliant as Arthur. I was shocked to read comments that he was the worst part of the show--he's a gigantic part of why this show is so great--his delivery of these ridiculous schemes (rounding out the crazy dad character) are beyond hilarious. And the yelling--the best episode is when they show him as a kid yelling "Lemon Icee!!". That episode, during which Carrie takes him to a therapist in hopes to get him medicated (to make Doug less stressed out), guest star William Hurt decides that Arthur yells because he's never been validated. The latter part of the episode where Doug beats up his childhood self in a therapy session is beyond funny, it's one of the most creative scenes I've seen on a sitcom. I feel the strange need to defend this show, because it is severely underrated--while "Friends" was sometimes amusing, and "Raymond" has some great episodes and characters, they both lacked the creative touch that "King of Queens" has. In an era where most sitcoms have canned jokes and are on the whole mediocre, "King of Queens" continues to push the sitcom envelope and show real comic genius. Critics of this show obviously don't get it--or haven't watched the show enough to give it a chance, because anyone with real comic and creative sensibility has to laugh out loud while watching. It's certainly on par with my other two favorites, "Seinfeld" and "The Office" in its ridiculous tone. It's the Arthurs, Kramers, and Michael Scotts of TV that keep us watching, and laughing out loud.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.Grade: C-$LABEL$ 0
+Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.$LABEL$ 0
+Seymour Cassel gives a great performance, a tour de force. His acting as supposed washed up beach stud Duke Slusarski will always have a place in my heart. The film is centered around a nerd who just came to the beach in hopes of honoring his dead brother's dreams. What he gets is lame surf hijinks. Guys cheating, guys fighting, and guys getting drunk going to watch surf documentaries with the whole town of LA on a Friday night. Duke takes the nerd in and tries to teach him how playing volleyball is like touching a woman. Next time my woman talks back I will pretend I'm spiking the ball. Back to Seymour Cassel. The end of the movie turns into a good drama, since the first half of the film really had no point. Duke plays a wonderful game of volleyball, the best he's played in over ten years. The way the scene is shot is beautiful. You can feel the heart this man has for the game and the love of being on the beach. Those five minutes will go down as one of my favorites of all time. 3/10 Bad to Fair, the rest of the movie was lame.$LABEL$ 0
+Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.$LABEL$ 0
+Although I found the acting excellent, and the cinematography beautiful, I was extremely disappointed with the adaptation.One of the significant portions of the novella is the fact that Ethan and Mattie decide to kill themselves, rather than go on. This is never presented in the movie, they show it as if it were a sledding accident.The character changes in Mattie and Zenna are almost non-existent. While in the novella they almost change places, at the end of this adaptation it appears as if they are both invalids.Lastly that Mattie and Ethan consummate their relationship fully nearly destroys the power and poignancy of the finale.The change of the narrator being a preacher was one effective change.Neeson and Arquette are superb in their portrayals. Joan Allen was also wonderful, however her character was much watered down from Whartons novella.I do not expect films to faithfully portray novels, but this one went to far and in the process nearly destroyed the story.Overall, I would not recommend watching this film unless you have read the book as you will come away confused and disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+-That's pretty much the whole soundtrack to this film. I just saw this baby at the Munich Film Festival and it rocked the house. Director Doug Pray is never seen in this documentary, nor I think he is even heard, but he has done a very intimate look into the lives and history of the "mixer." He has segmented his film into about eight chapters and then his motley group of enthusiastic interviews will be spiced throughout according to what they are talking about. I was never big into "scratching" but the film does a wonderful job of keeping elementary for those who know little, and infusing in-jokes for those who are experts themselves in this area. Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys is in this film, but it wasn't until after the film that I could name several heavy hitters in the industry (DJ Shadow, Q- Bert, etc). The extreme fascination for turntables by these talented and quirky DJs is evident in their explanations of what their music means to them. The film also sheds some gratifying light on these guys (and one woman) to be classified as musicians. Pray doesn't let his film idle and if there exists a slow scene it is soon re-energized by hardly ever ceasing music. If nothing else, this film will increase your slang vocabulary. I have to get back to "digging", so I'll end this review. See it, it will be of interest. Good stuff man. Good stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+An ex- informant of the East Germany finishes in Mexico like spy of a student group in 1971 in where she falls in love with one of the activists. This is the first co-production of Mexico with Germany, and although it is a good picture of the ideals that marked, and continue marking (at least to the CGH), youth, as much finishes being something insipid since to the internal dilemmas that it faces Dark brown (Noethem) like the passion by his ideals that Adela feels (Campomanes), as soon as they glimpse, in the case of him, I want to suppose, by the barrier of the language; and in the case of her by its lack of experience. Reason why in the end a concrete identification with any of them does not exist, which causes that what could have been films that even served as document like Red Dawn, finished being one more a film; although I want to clarify that in the room many of the assistants were excited in the conversation with the director, which says to me that no longer they are so young or my ideals have changed.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.$LABEL$ 0
+Boris Karloff is Matthias Morteval, a dying, lonely old nut who lives in Morhenge Mansion with some servants and tells his doctor friend, "Don't try to doctor me, doctor! I'm disgustingly healthy!" He invites his nieces and nephews to his home and warns them they may have inherited a genetic disease that causes madness by "shrinking the brain" (?)***SPOILERS***Morteval/Karloff ends up dying, and murderous "toys" (designed by his dead brother) start killing off the relatives. A mini cannon fires real bullets into a guys face, a life-sized knight in armor attacks with an axe and a dancing Sheik stabs people with a knife. One guy getting strangled makes some hilarious faces. At the end, Julissa and her boyfriend find Karloff is still alive and hiding out in the dungeon where steel gates seal off the room. He plays the recurring organ theme music (sort of a death rattle used for the killings), the brother's spirit starts talking ("The whole house will go with me!") and the mansion goes up in flames.This senseless mess is too dark, boring and the stupid dialogue never matches the lips.$LABEL$ 0
+Don't listen to fuddy-duddy critics on this one, this is a gem! Young rich Joan and her brother find themselves penniless after their father dies - and now they have to work for a living! She, naturally, becomes a reporter, and he, just as naturally, a driver for the mob! By wild co-incidences their careers meet head on, thanks to gangster Clark Gable. In the meantime there is the chance for a moonlight underwear swim for a bunch of pretty young things and for Joan to do a couple of risque dance numbers (with all the grace of a steam-shovel).But none of this is supposed to be taken seriously - it's all good fun from those wonderful pre-code days, when Hollywood was really naughty. Joan looks great, and displays much of the emotional range that would give her career such longevity (thank God she stopped the dancing!). Gable is remarkable as a slimy gangster - he wasn't a star yet and so didn't have to be the hero. Great to see him playing something different. And William Bakewell is excellent as the poor confused brother. And there are some great montages and tracking shots courtesy of director Harry Beaumont, who moves the piece on with a cracking pace - and an occasional wink to the audience! Great fun!$LABEL$ 1
+I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it. Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride. Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned. I don't think this scene added to the movie at all. I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!$LABEL$ 0
+Well now, this was certainly a surprise episode. In this anthology science fiction series, with all of this Alien Beings, Extraordinary Occurrences and many Brushes with the Hereafter, this episode would certainly rate as unusual. Its seemingly insignificant settings apparently not imparting any morale at story's end. Or does it? Kicking off with the Silent Movie Form, no recorded dialog, but having Musical accompaniment. In this case it's on the sound track, not utilizing the Playing of Organ or Piano by an on sight Musician. This part of the episode, along with the ending section, also made liberal use o Title Cards, just like "the Old Time Movies." While these Titles are a bit exaggerated and overdone, they are made so intentionally and with an affection for rather than any contempt for The Silent Film.Veteran Comedy Film Director, Norman Z. McLeod, was the man in the Chair for this half-hour installment. He had been the Director of many of the greatest comedies of all time, featuring people like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Harold Lloyd and Danny Kaye. He was no stranger to to TV, as he had done a lot of work on Television Series.It doesn't appear that he and Mr. Keaton had ever worked together before(as I cannot find any evidence of this)' but judging by the outcome of the film, they succeeded in doing so with flying colors! Anyone who directed Keaton was aware that Buster was also a fine comedy Director as well as a Comedy Player. He was just as comfortable behind the camera as he was in front of it. Their short partnership must have been a harmonious one, with 'give and take' about how to do things. It is apparent that many of the gags were Keaton's, resurrected from his own Silent Picture Days. For example, the gag of putting the pair of pants on with Rollo's(Stanley Adams assistance was done by Keaton and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle in one of the Arbuckle 2 Reelers, THE GARAGE (1919). That was a clear example of his craft in a nutshell.Buster knew that we film our world with a camera, rendering it a two dimensional image. This one fact is at the bottom of so many of gags. It is a Cardinal Rule for his film making.The cast was small and once again just chock full-of veteran talent. Stanley Adams was Rollo and served as Mr. Keaton's straight man. Jesse White, the old 'Maytag Repair Man', ran the fix it shop that fixed the 'Time HJelmet'. Gil Lamb, serene veteran of RKO Short Comedy series, was the 1890's Cop. James Flavin, George E.Stone, Harry Fleer, Warren Parker, and Milton Parsons all rounded out this largely silent cast.Without spilling the beans, let's just say that yes, there is probably a lesson to be learned here. If not the one already mentioned, "The Grass Always Looks Greener on the Other Side of the Fence!", then how about, "Be Careful in What You Ask For, Because You Just May Get It!"$LABEL$ 1
+So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, "what about the effects?" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word "battle" in it. Ugh.I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars.$LABEL$ 0
+An excellent family movie... gives a lot to think on... There's absolutely nothing wrong in this film. Everything is just perfect. The script is great - it's so... real... such things could happen in everyone's life. And don't forget about acting - it's just awesome! Just look at Frankie and You'll know what I thought about... This picture is a real can't-miss!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Beautifully filmed, well acted, tightly scripted suspense movie. Had me on the edge of my seat. I liked the lead actress very much, and thought the villain was very well done. Not much to chew on here in the way of a theme, but if you just get in your seat, turn your brain off, watch the fancy camera work, and enjoy the plot, you will have a great time. The plot is well worn, and regular movie goers will probably know more or less what to expect by about ten minutes in. But that didn't bother me, as I enjoyed watching it unfold. In the old days, they might not have focused so tightly on just two characters, and there were some enticing moments when I hoped they were going to let some other people have a few lines. But these folks were probably right to keep the movie so tightly focused. The plot got me by the throat fairly early on, and never let go. It's not a good idea to think too much either during or after the movie. as I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense. Just sit back and enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+It wasn't the worst movie that I have ever seen. However, that is only if I get to count home movies made by 8 year olds. This movie was horrible from start to finish. Nothing about it made it worth watching unless you wanted to show new filmmakers how not to make a film.$LABEL$ 0
+I really liked this movie, it was good, and the actors were brilliant! Leon Robinson, who played Richard, and many other classic singers, is very good at his job, when you see him in a musical movie, you know that it is going to be good! I would suggest that people watch this heart warming, sad, and special movie, if they want to know more about Richard! Outstanding! Fresh!$LABEL$ 1
+I love this movie like no other. Another time I will try to explain its virtues to the uninitiated, but for the moment let me quote a few of pieces the remarkable dialogue, which, please remember, is all tongue in cheek. Aussies and Poms will understand, everyone else-well?(title song lyric)"he can sink a beer, he can pick a queer, in his latest double-breasted Bondi gear."(another song lyric) "All pommies are bastards, bastards, or worse, and England is the a**e-hole of the universe."(during a television interview on an "arty program"): Mr Mackenzie what artists have impressed you most since you've been in England? (Barry's response)Flamin' bull-artists!(while chatting up a naive young pom girl): Mr Mackenzie, I suppose you have hordes of Aboriginal servants back in Australia? (Barry's response) Abos? I've never seen an Abo in me life. Mum does most of the solid yacca (ie hard work) round our place.This is just a taste of the hilarious farce of this bonser Aussie flick. If you can get a copy of it, watch and enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+Englar Alheimsins are very good movie. She happen on a mental home in Iceland. Ingvar E. Sigurdsson is in a leading role and is good. Other good actors in this movie are Baltasar Kormákur and Bjorn Jorundur. I like this movie she is very good. I voice with this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Allison Dean's performance is what stands out in my mind watching this film. She balances out the melancholy tone of the film with an iridescent energy. I would like to see more of her.$LABEL$ 1
+I personally liked "The Prophecy" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, "The Prophecy II" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the "Prophecy" films. "The Prophecy II" is nevertheless the weakest of the three "Prophecy" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that.$LABEL$ 0
+Might contain spoilers.This is just a good movie. Lots of good silly stuff to laugh at. However, do not watch the TV version, they cut to much out. Dom Deluise is rather awesome as the mafia Don who is hired to kill Robin. All I can say about his ten minutes: it's a long drive from Jersey. Also you gotta love them checking the script to make sure Robin gets another shot. Also: 12th Century Fox.Any bad stuff? The rappers at the beginning and the end seem rather out dated. The songs were rather lame. One time while watching this movie, I could think out a few more times when they could have thrown in another joke or 2. On the whole, however, an enjoyable movie experience. A must watch for comedy fans.$LABEL$ 1
+I am uncertain what to make of this misshapen 2007 dramedy. Attempting to be a new millennium cross-hybrid between On Golden Pond and The Prince of Tides, this film ends up being an erratic mess shifting so mercurially between comedy and melodrama that the emotional pitch always seems off. The main problem seems to be the irreconcilable difference between Garry Marshall's sentimental direction and Mark Andrus' dark, rather confusing screenplay. The story focuses on the unraveling relationship between mother Lilly and daughter Rachel, who have driven all the way from San Francisco to small-town Hull, Idaho where grandmother Georgia lives. The idea is for Lilly to leave Rachel for the summer under Georgia's taskmaster jurisdiction replete with her draconian rules since the young 17-year old has become an incorrigible hellion.The set-up is clear enough, but the characters are made to shift quickly and often inexplicably between sympathetic and shrill to fit the contrived contours of the storyline. It veers haphazardly through issues of alcoholism, child molestation and dysfunctional families until it settles into its pat resolution. The three actresses at the center redeem some of the dramatic convolutions but to varying degrees. Probably due to her off-screen reputation and her scratchy smoker's voice, Lindsay Lohan makes Rachel's promiscuity and manipulative tactics palpable, although she becomes less credible as her character reveals the psychological wounds that give a reason for her hedonistic behavior. Felicity Huffman is forced to play Lilly on two strident notes - as a petulant, resentful daughter to a mother who never got close to her and as an angry, alcoholic mother who starts to recognize her own accountability in her daughter's state of mind. She does what she can with the role on both fronts, but her efforts never add up to a flesh-and-blood human being.At close to seventy, Jane Fonda looks great, even as weather-beaten as she is here, and has the star presence to get away with the cartoon-like dimensions of the flinty Georgia. The problem I have with Fonda's casting is that the legendary actress deserves far more than a series of one-liners and maternal stares. Between this and 2005's execrable Monster-in-Law, it does make one wonder if her best work is behind her. It should come as no surprise that the actresses' male counterparts are completely overshadowed. Garrett Hedlund looks a little too surfer-dude as the naïve Harlan, a devout Mormon whose sudden love for Rachel could delay his two-year missionary stint. Cary Elwes plays on a familiar suspicious note as Lilly's husband, an unfortunate case where predictable casting appears to telegraph the movie's ending.There is also the omnipresent Dermot Mulroney in the morose triple-play role of the wounded widower, Lilly's former flame and Rachel's new boss as town veterinarian Dr. Simon Ward. Laurie Metcalf has a barely-there role as Simon's sister Paula, while Marshall regular Hector Elizondo and songsmith Paul Williams show up in cameos. Some of Andrus' dialogue is plain awful and the wavering seriocomic tone never settles on anything that feels right. There are several small extras with the 2007 DVD, none all too exciting. Marshall provides a commentary track that has plenty of his trademark laconic humor. There are several deleted scenes, including three variations on the ending, and a gag reel. A seven-minute making-of featurette is included, as well as the original theatrical trailer, a six-minute short spotlighting the three actresses and a five-minute tribute to Marshall.$LABEL$ 0
+There is only one word to define the whole movie, that is: awful. How "Mostly Martha" was remade is awful. The title of the movie is awful. The actors are awful. And the idea of combining good cooking and USA is awful. If you have seen "Bella Martha", well that is the original title and it means "Beautiful Martha", this one is a punch in the stomach. The acting of Ms.Jones is so poor and unnatural that even Jessica Alba, considered one of the worst actresses (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomActr.asp) would have done better. Not to mention the cook, who would better play a different role. And the little girl... not worth mentioning. Bella Martha was a very nice movie, an authentic one... why was it remade? There was a story.... here they took it out. There is no story... What shall it represent? In one way also this movie was perfect. You know when all ingredients fit together? Well this is the case here. A perfect Crap....$LABEL$ 0
+Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in "Casablanca" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Château d'Yquem with the foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and perhaps a 1961 Château Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed?$LABEL$ 1
+In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.$LABEL$ 1
+***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** After two so-so outings ("Magnum Force" and "The Enforcer"), Dirty Harry seems to have regained his stride in "Sudden Impact," a gripping thriller that wisely plays to its strengths: the charisma of Clint Eastwood, who also directed, and a story that spends just enough time on exposition and reserves its energy for the big scenes.For once, the case takes Harry outside his native San Francisco (where he's again in trouble with his superiors for his "shoot first, ask questions later" tactics), to the hamlet of San Paulo. There, (WARNING: Potential spoiler) a group of lowlifes is being gruesomely murdered, one at a time, by a woman whom they gang-raped years earlier, and whose sister has been in a state of catatonia ever since the attack.The killer is portrayed by Sondra Locke, and she makes the character of Jennifer Spencer an interesting mix of compassion and cold-bloodedness. Locke's cold eyes and frosty voice, when either trying to comfort her hospitalized sister or dispensing vengeance toward the rapists, are very effective in painting a portrait of a woman wronged whose years of suffering and rage are now beginning to bear deadly fruit.The rapists are a despicable lot, especially the leader, who has "psycho nutjob" practically stamped on his forehead, and a lesbian who seems almost one of the guys, despite her anatomical inability to participate. The flashback scenes, while not graphically explicit, are nightmarish enough, and clearly intended to make the audience cheer for Jennifer as she kills her assailants.Some will dismiss "Sudden Impact" as trash: a mindless, manipulative revenge tale. On a certain level this is true, but it's well-done trash. What works to the movie's advantage is the strength of the Sondra Locke performance, giving us a complex character whose wounds are more visible in her paintings than in her gestures or speech. What we have here is an action movie with a point of view.You can take or leave the idea that some wrongs deserve to be punished by any means necessary, but as the mystery behind the slayings becomes clear to Harry (a realization that, wisely, is not spelled out with dialogue), he is presented with a choice -- what to do about a killer whose motivations he can sympathize with but whose conduct he is bound by law to not tolerate. This makes the story more interesting than the usual Dirty Harry fare.The movie's other redeeming quality is Eastwood's direction. This is, after all, a Dirty Harry movie, and Eastwood knows the character better than anyone else. The movie is directed with style and wit, and edited to give the action scenes a big payoff. Some of the best "Harry moments" in the entire series are here, including Harry's best-known line, "Go ahead -- make my day.""Sudden Impact" is a movie that has the courage of its convictions in presenting a tale about a despicable crime and the brutal consequences that follow. It is also a riveting detective story, well made and well told. And it is certainly never dull. On those criteria, it succeeds tremendously.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie and I thought this is a stupid movie. What is even more stupid is that who had thought an idea that there should be a volcano in Los Angeles? The fact is that there are no volcanoes in Los Angeles. This movie should not be filmed in Los Angeles, it should be filmed in Honolulu Hawaii. Hawaii has volcanoes which is a real fact that this movie should be made in Hawaii's state capital. This movie should be filmed in Hawaii because this is the real idea and not in Los Angeles. There are earthquakes in Los Angeles, but there are no volcanoes. To be honest with you, this is unbelievable nonsense and very foolish. In conclusion, I will not bother with this movie because a volcano in Los Angeles is nothing but nonsense.$LABEL$ 0
+Here's a review for people like me. This movie sucks from beginning to end. I threw popcorn at the screen and resorted to entertaining myself a la MSF2000. The plot hinges on chance happenings and relies on stupidity from people who are supposed to be smart. The lead falls for a con man and it doesn't occur to her that she might get conned????? And she's rich???? And she's a famous psychologist????? COME ON, people. She enters the bar at just the most convenient moment when everyone is assembled to talk about conning her??? That was so staged that it felt like slap in the face to even half-witted movie viewers. Rain man would have been insulted. I also admit that I despise Mamet dialogue with the kind of passion that some people have for meat-eaters, war-starters, and fur-wearers. My hatred is so complete that it defies logic. But I'll give it a shot. That it's not supposed to sound real is fine. I don't care. It's that everyone talks the SAME. Mamet can't create characters; all he can do is foist his voice on us relentlessly through different actors. No wonder his actors are so wooden. They're confused about everyone being the same character. (However, his later films do improve.)$LABEL$ 0
+Basically, "Caprica" is the Cylon origin story. The premise of the show is interesting. However, the writers follow so many story lines and clog it with too many POV characters that it bogs down the storytelling. The plot creeps at glacial speeds dissipating what tension it might have had. In any given episode, little or nothing happens.Daniel Graystone (Eric Stolz) is a military contractor working on a robotic soldier using a stolen chip. Unfortunately, his only working prototype is driven by the AI version of his dead daughter Zoe, who died in a suicide bombing caused by Soldiers of the One (STO), an underground monotheist extremist group.Meanwhile, Joseph Adama (father of "Battlestar Galactica"'s Commander Adama) is struggling to hold his family together while searching for the AI version of his daughter (who also died in the bombing) in a Machiavellian virtual version of Caprica (which strongly resembles 1930s Chicago). In addition to the vapid writing, Caprica suffers from a similar problem as many origin stories. We already know how it ends (i.e. the Cylons develop their own civilization and rebel against humanity).$LABEL$ 0
+I was on France, around March 05, and I love to go to this Film Festivals. I knew about this Cinémas d'Amérique Latine de Toulouse, but I've never went to it. I decided to go and then I caught Cero y van 4. The film is stunning. It doesn't caused the impact on me like with the Mexican users, because it was french-subtitled but it's still shocking.This film is a satire about urban violence, about kidnapping and crime on the streets in Mexico. It is a crude portrait of the city. Of a Metropolis. Secuestro Express, with a stunning Mia Maestro, which was also a satire of kidnapping, almost, but with a more serious tone has, and I think so, some kinda connection with Cero y van 4. A, sort of, redemption story and that how much is too much? Man on Fire, that was stunningly strong, was also, not a satire, but a crude portrait into the streets of Mexico. Or it is like The Brave One. A film that shocks and hits you in the guts very hard. This is like The Usual Suspects, it has some plot twists and turns, but that makes it even more believable. Verdict: A film that shocks and makes you believe that there's no security on the streets anymore. Stunning dialogue, impressive direction and astonishing performances. Cero y van 4 is a film that you won't forget soon. Leaves you shaking and stunned.$LABEL$ 1
+Have you ever seen one of those shows that became so popular that it could eventually get away with any crummy nonsense and repetitive halfhearted gimmicks that it's creators can get away with? If you haven't, then you've never seen Family Guy.Fans of the show seem to think of it as witty, edgy, and poignant. It's none of these, it is however dull, repetitive, insulting, and uninspired.The "humor" of the show comes from two sources.1) Irrelevant idiocy. The show often has flashbacks to things that have nothing to do with the plot and are mostly just absurd and pointless. And then there's the random movie references in which the shows characters reenact a scene from a popular movie without effectively parodying it . . . or parodying it at all(which ISN'T FUNNY!!!!!).2) the same crap that's in every episode the show. The one guy is a sexual deviant with STD's, AHA HA! Isn't that funny?! Hey, ya know what's even funnier? Making the same joke about him anywhere between one and fifteen times in a single episode. And don't just tell it numerous times in a single episode, make sure you drag it out so that an entire scene is devoted just to telling the one joke. Now also imagine that this same routine is used over and over again for practically every character in the whole series.The offbeat "un-PC" humor isn't as "un-PC" as they would have you believe, mostly they just say whatever morons think about the latest newspaper headlines, politicians, and random celebrities.The series had it's moments, but now I think it's time just take the show off the air and be done with it.You know what IS funny? I still like this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the wind.$LABEL$ 0
+Those French and those Germans sure have a long history of not liking each other. It is interesting to note that Kamerdaschaft or Comradeship in translation takes place in 1931. Only a few years later, Hitler would siege Germany and begin his plans to take over the world, France being a casualty of his ambitions. But these are times of sereneness compared to the future. A group of miners at the border try to cross over to France to get work. They are spurned back and later at a nightclub by their French neighbors. Then a disaster happens in the mines of the French and a well-crafted and written scene, a troupe of German miners decide to come to the rescue. A simple story is it not? Pabst was a poet of silent cinema and I am not sure if this is his first sound movie or not, but his poetry is there to be discovered. He isn't fussy but brings a rugged realism to the ordeal. Ther is even a flashback to a WWII event that beckons the point of this story. Supposedly based on a real event, the movie does the events proudly with directness and terseness. Smetimes, that's what a movie needs to be.$LABEL$ 1
+Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level.$LABEL$ 1
+How truly sad that this sprung from the same mind as Donnie Darko, possibly one of the best films in this genre. Where do I even begin? I think one of the must infuriating aspects of the film is that we are supposed to be critiquing humanity, and yet we see no humanity in the film. No more than 5 minutes of the film is spend agonizing about the possible death of another human. These are horrible one dimensional cardboard cutouts of human beings. Sadly, that's how they are played with what can only be described as dreadful acting. Is this truly how Kelly sees humanity? Judging from the reaction of viewers, this is a horrible encapsulation of humanity. Why don't the characters in the film ask the questions that all the viewers have? This is not an indictment of humanity. It's an indictment of the straw men that Kelly sets up who bare almost no resemblance to real humans in this situation.To those who say this was a wonderful thought-provoking film, to what are you comparing it? Armageddon? I even saw someone compare this to the works of Kurosawa. How truly deprived must you be to think that this would promote good existential discussion? For the love of all that's good in film! Even Indecent Proposal is ten times the indictment of humanity that this is. There we see people truly agonizing about greed and the human condition. Yes, even Indecent Proposal puts this film to shame for philosophical discussion and yet it gets 5.3 vs 6.0 for this mindless tripe.Rarely have I seen a more pretentious, pontificating, and self aggrandizing, film fall so flatly on its face. This has the depth of a high school film project, and a poor one at that. Truly, that's about the level of the discussion promoted by this film. If you want to see GOOD psychological film making, do yourself a favor and check out Das Experiment. If The Box had lived up even to this one goal, I would have been willing to forgive some of the atrocious acting, gaping plot holes, and sheer nonsensical storyline. Sadly, it can't even do that.The true indictment of humanity is that there are people out there who think this film is a deeply delving introspective look into the human condition. This is not Sartre! This is not even the Cliff Notes version of Sartre! This is a hastily conceived and hack-written 9th grade term paper on Sartre based on some internet message board ramblings. If Sartre were alive, he would sue Kelly for defamation.$LABEL$ 0
+Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx$LABEL$ 0
+Hey look, you don't watch this movie to change your life! But if you are female especially and have always had a little thing for Richard Gere; this movie is right up your street. Diane Lane and Richard Gere have on screen chemistry going way back. 'Nights in Rodanthe' is not a Oscar winner movie and it will probably be forgotten sooner rather than later but if you want an atmospheric, beautifully shot love story between MIDDLE AGED good looking people (they don't make your stomach turn and even when Gere is 'on top' he does not look too jowly) then this is the movie for you. I loved the theme of the story and it was quite relevant in many ways. Of course the whole thing was presented in a superficial way, glossed over and not really dealt with.....I mean I would have liked to know more about the father/son relationship between Gere and James Franco, but the story was really about the idea that a great love can CHANGE you for the better; whether it is a lover, a child, a friend etc. The theme of the film is about love and its mysterious ways. I was kind of surprised that James Franco took such a small part in this film but he is always good even for a few minutes screen time. I really liked this film because it was moving and sweet.$LABEL$ 1
+A man is builing a hotel with a partner. He finds out the hotel is over-insured. Things just get worse. This film has a huge mumber of scenes. They must have been put together in someones' sleep. It jumps around from place to place. It does not stay focused on anything for very long. The ending starts on christmas morning with a hotel fire. It then cuts to a night scene of that fire and then cuts back to day time. The DVD sound track is horrible. It takes a fair plot and turns into the worst film I have scene in a long time.$LABEL$ 0
+Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)$LABEL$ 0
+Truly unique and stunning film of Jules Verne's "For The Flag" by the Czech master director Karel Zeman.Although the story is enacted in a rather understated late Victorian style, the visuals are a knockout. Zeman uses animation, graphics, painted sets, model animation combined with live action to create the atmosphere of Verne that the reader associates in his mind. The style resembles the steel engravings of Dore and Bennet and Riou that illustrated these stories with a healthy dose of Georges Melies added.Photographed in beautiful black and white the animation is of the highest order and not of a Saturday morning variety. There are underwater sequences where the fishes swimming about are so accurately drawn they can be used in a field guide.There are images of ships ,submarines, flying craft, castles,and machinery that are drawn in such accurate detail that one must have a freeze frame on his VCR or DVD to pause the scene and study the remarkable detail that went into this production.The late Victorian atmosphere is designed to look like this world that never was and delight us in the magic of science that made Verne the great father of the genre. If this is not enough, there also is the film score that probably is one of the best ever created for a fantasy or sci-fi film.Truly a forgotten classic, this one is worth hunting down and buying. Always one of my favorite films of all times, it is sure to be one of yours too. And remember- this was done decades before CGI or computer animation. Kudos to the great artists who obviously put their heart into it. It shows. Jules Verne himself would be proud of this movie.A film that deserves to be better known, but those who have seen it love it-and treasure it. An outstanding achievement , this remarkable film just gets better every time you watch it. A true cinematic work of art from a visionary director.$LABEL$ 1
+Definitely one of my favourite movies. The story is good, acting is great, all technicals (especially cinematography) are sharp and the script is clever.Heath Ledger is terrific as Edward ''Ned'' Kelly. He is gripping as the legendary outlaw, and is supported well by Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Orlando Bloom. All action sequences are on pointThe film is edge-of-your seat stuff right up to to the end. One of my favourite films from the late legend Heath Ledger, who has been the highlight of every film he has starred in. And makes no mistake here.An excellent film all round.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a movie of which I kept on reading the reviews again and again; and despite it being played at Film Museum and not at Pathe theatres – I decided to give this movie a try. The reasons were many – in the reviews it was compared with Pulp Fiction, it had several parallel stories running in the movie and lastly it had already won 17 awards internationally in various categories. I was eager to see this movie and due to my off day at Greenpeace I decided to make myself happy by going and seeing this movie.It is a story based in Finland. I think it reflected the current life of people in general – drugs, crime, sex, anger, anguish, fear and guilt. Every emotion was captured brilliantly in the movie. There are several characters and stories interwoven but a few characters come back in the latter half – making a link with the beginning sequences and that takes the story forward.The story is about two friends – one of whom is computer geek and the other is a drug addict – son of an abusive father. The drug addict boy trades a Euro 500 note – printed by his friend – to buy back his music system, and in returns gets huge change of cash back to buy more drugs. The trading of Euro 500 note continues to bizarre events – from the shop trader to an auto mechanic cum robber – to a car dealer – to a vacuum cleaner salesman – to a prostitute – to a police officer – then to her family and children. How the beginning of a small thing – creates a chain reaction that lead even after 5 years of that first incident to a depressing last note – which I won't reveal here.The direction is excellent. The character development in the movie is first rate. The character that sticks on your mind even after you come out of the movie is of the vacuum cleaner sales person. All the departments of the movie are handled nicely. Here I would like to make a couple of critical comments. First, during the sequence of one event leading to another I felt that the coincidences were too rapid and forced. But this screenplay writing error is pardon when one sees the whole canvas. Second, the trail of one character leading to another somehow leads back to the first two characters and that again I found to be a forced decision by the screen play writer. There was no need to have the same characters showing up again when there are different causes leading to different effects in such a big city.But after saying that – it is an excellent movie! It is a dark movie with quite a few sex scenes. The characters are having the black, white and gray shades and emotions that change from facing different situation which is brilliantly captured by the director.A top rate movie! It has all the ingredients of becoming a cult movie. I hope that only such movies should not become and achieve the status of cult movies and win lots of awards, because without crime, sex, violence, drugs etc. too one can make fantastic movies – Bicycle Thieves and Pather Panchali are its prime examples – only thing is that they were a long time back and times are changing and I think movies are reflecting the current times.$LABEL$ 1
+this a haunting piece of work.its only ten minutes long but i would sooner pay ten bucks into the cinema to see this than to see any full lenght movie currently doing the rounds. it is a simple piece of a man's reflection.he arrived a young man in this place and was mesmerised by a room and the music coming from it...and now here he sits,dying in old age in this place he so fondly connects to his youth. the music in it is brilliant,the guitars have that jazz-room twang like neil young's music in dead man. if you get the chance,watch this film.its worth it.if rutger hauer made more films like this i think he would get more respect than he gets.at the moment you hear him put under phrases like "everybody's favourite psycho".im sure that is not what rutger would want to be rememered as an actor for.he also directed this film,so in this shows that he a very artistic actor/director.a change from the b-grade movies he has been doing since the early 90's.i hope to see more of this rutger hauer as he is one of my favourite actors.$LABEL$ 1
+The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.$LABEL$ 0
+Only saw this show a few times, but will live in my memory. It is very frustrating that it is so difficult to find this anywhere to purchase and yet there seem to be endless repeats of stuff like Friends! Especially even more difficult to obtain being in England I guess..?They say it was low ratings or was it a complaint from the Bakersfield PD themselves? Maybe it was just too clever for certain people? Anyhow, just about the one comedy I would love to see again but is almost impossible to find. I hear it is being or has been repeated on another network? But alas not over here!!Summary: Ingenious.$LABEL$ 1
+Greetings All,Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about "Flatliners" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought "Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition".Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is really really bad, it is not very well done and is a lack lustre attempt at something but I am not sure what. I watched it and was very disappointed. It promised a lot, but delivered nothing at all. The characters are shallow and wooden, and the music, if you can call it that, is dreadful. There are of course all the creatures and animated beings, but they are so poorly done that it does not come across as anything other than a third rate movie. It is a real shame that more attention could not have been spent to the special effects, not the be all and end all of a movie I agree, but in a movie that is based around them, it's a very important factor. For me, a very sad attempt, and should be avoided.$LABEL$ 0
+Before I watched this film I read a review here stating that this film could possibly be one of the best films ever!? ha ha Scene by scene the tension grows alright... from the annoying characters in this movie. From the little girl talking gibberish and trying to drown the little boy, to the killer just running about without any notice (and who was the guy at the beach talking to the little boy!?)..things just seem to happen and then go unanswered in this film. As I watched it seemed like the film was going in one direction, then just doesn't go anywhere, but into a new direction...and on and on...The acting is great, but the writing is horrible. Each character, in each scene, says or does something so unbelievable, unrealistic and the reactions of the fellow cast/extras are simply strange. There are no resolutions to the problems developed throughout the film, making it confusing and ultimately a big waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+I just have to say that this was the third worst movie I have ever seen right after the attack of the murder tomato's 3 and starship troopers 2. It wasn't just dialogs or the paper walls or even the guns shots which just automagically disappeared with no holes in the walls. It was the horrible acting. No wonder that I have never seen these actors before they all probably slept with the director(s). I think i'am being nice to this movie now but that is only because i'am to tired from screaming at the movie (just saw it). My advice is to buy as many DVD's of this movie as you possibly can and burn it so no one ever can see this horrible waste of time, money and film ever again.$LABEL$ 0
+DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT This little forgotten gem holds a special place in my heart and on the Video Nasties List. The flute-sitar-rattle box soundtrack is classic. The main character, although way hotter than most low budget starlets, is a pretty standard low budget lead. The Doctor Masters character is well written and well acted. Some of the lesser characters are kinda stupid but add to the nostalgia of the movie. It's Campy. I ain't trying to lie. The character that makes this great is a Faulknarian Man-Child named Sam, one of the patients in this sanitarium-gone-mad-flick. The gore is pretty standard although I think the color of the blood is awesome. It's so ..Red. This movie, I believe, was received poorly because of it advertising scheme. Some soulless little ad executive got his grubby hands on it and thought " Let's rip of the AD campaign for Last House on the Left, that's doing well". Little chumps like this have ruined the world of film. All balls and no brain. Also, the editor may or may not have been an alcoholic. Maybe there all drunk. You'll see what I mean. One more little note. Don't buy this from the Wally-Mart dollar rack. They have cut it to and unwatchable level. Try to find the longest cut you can.$LABEL$ 1
+Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.Another "user" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about "Midnight Cowboy" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!........and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of "Midnight Cowboy". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.The "trivia" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of "Ratzo" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.Some of the "users" thought "Joe Buck" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the "users" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of "Midnight Cowboy" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as "Deliverance". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.I also did not find any homosexuality between "Ratzo" and "Joe" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. "Joe's" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. "The party" ? - attend some of the "raves" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking "this isn't real", look at today's "ladies" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.The brutality "Joe" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. "Joe" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps "only in America" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is so great. Its set back in probably the 40's and Meg Ryan's character struggles to be known as 'smart.' Plus Tim Robbins is so cute in this movie. And everything about it has a magical feeling towards it. Everytime I watch it I feel happy. It's definitely a girl movie, and I'm a girl, so I like it. I also love the music. The violin is awesome. but besides that I think it's a cute story and everyone should watch it.$LABEL$ 1
+I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.Boran.$LABEL$ 0
+I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.$LABEL$ 0
+What can be said about a movie about a cross dressing gangster? Not that much. With the average indie style film-making, this film has the timing all wrong. Editing is just awful. As far as the gangster story, it might have been pulled off if the gangsters didn't lack character. Everyone just seemed to be there for some sort of punch line. None of which were funny. The usual suspects in this film are the hooker with the heart of gold, the dying mafia father that wishes his son would make his business legit, the best friend with the "zany" one-liners. But the main character, the gangster that likes to dress up like a girl. Only his motivation for dressing up like a girl is that he got mugged by a woman? Weird. The ending of the movie had to be the nail in the coffin. It was anti-climatic to say the least. I mean I understand how indie filmmakers don't have the equipment for a proper shot out, but they might as well been using water guns. Overall, I would say the hype leading up to it, (red carpet premiere in Vancouver), it was a disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+There's not a dull moment in Francois Ozon's "Robe d'Ete". It's surprising how much is packed into this short film. While reclining on a deserted beach after a nude swim, a young gay is approached by a girl seeking a light for her cigarette. She invites him to make love in a wooded area near the beach. On returning to the beach. they find that all his clothes have been stolen. She lends him a summer dress to cover his nakedness and requests he return it next day. He rides his bike back to the holiday cabin dressed as a girl. His gay companion is sexually excited. Early next morning the young man returns to the sea and bids farewell to the girl whose holiday has ended. She suggests he keep the dress as a memento of their summer romance. It's a light-hearted film that captures the spirit of summer holidays by the sea, but perhaps not for those who are embarrassed by nudity or homosexual themes.$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this movie at a garage sale when I was like 15. I hated it then, and watching it again, just for the hell of it, it's even worse now. You can hear the director and cameraman in the background yelling commands like "Zoom, zoom, zoom!!!". The are no special effects, just a raw piece of meat that is supposed to be a brain. This is utter crap, and i originally thought it was a one of a kind home movie or something that I bought. But this was distributed elsewhere and it's just really weird to know that other people have seen it. Whoops I need 10 lines....well....this can be an interesting thing to watch to see how no-budget movies were made before the invention of digital cameras. This sucks. Actually, yeah do watch this just to see if you can sit through the worst. If you can make it through this you can make it through anything.$LABEL$ 0
+"Toi le Venin" is Robert Hossein's masterpiece,and one of the great thrillers of the fifties.Based on a Frederic Dard novel,a writer the director often worked with (see also "le Monte-Charge" which Hossein did not direct but in which he was the lead too),the screenplay grabs you from the first pictures on a desert road by night where a beautiful blonde might be the fieriest of the criminals to the mysterious house where he finds his femme fatale ..and her sister.Then begins a cat and mouse play .One of the sisters is in a wheelchair .But is she really disabled?Which one is the criminal who tried to kill the hero on that night? The two actresses,Marina Vlady and the late Odile Versois were sisters.Turn off all the lights before watching.Highly suspenseful.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the worse gay-related movies I have ever seen. Since these are not characters in this story it's hard to comment on the actual film. Therefore, since Colton Ford (aka Glen) laid his life open for all to see, I guess he's fair game to criticize. And that's not hard to do. Here goes. 50 something Glen is a big time porn star who wants fame and fortune as a big time singer. (I guess 11 films makes him a "star") Being gay and forty, I have seen porno and I did not recognize him or his lover. Personally they all look the same to me with different hair styles. Face it, guys, he's no Jeff Stryker, Jim Bently or Casey Donovon. That's OK, though. The purpose of these films takes place in about 6.5 minutes, so they all pretty much have the same requirements, if you know what I mean.So Glen wants to be a serious (legit) singer after he dumps the porno industry but he can't get anyone to take him seriously. I wonder why? Was he so stupid to think that he could whitewash taking his clothes off and having sex on film. And according to the film it's not just porn flicks he indulges in, it's living in a house with other "stars" where people can hook into their bedroom, the bathroom and where ever via webcams . It's 500 dollars an hour to entertain at a private party. Strip gigs at clothing optional "hotels". Doing something called meth which I presume is a drug. And then you have the balls to get angry when someone at a club gig tries to touch you ---- because he's "legit" now. Oy!The only interesting, non-cardboard character is the Academy Award winning gay screen writer who wouldn't give his name. And considering this is a documentary, well, porn is as porn does. You can tell he's most amused by the dumb-bunny porn star.Glen has one hyper-nellie manager (Kyle) who wants to "sell' him as a porno-participant in hopes of getting him gay-club gigs. He tries to do the Svengalli-routine. "Wear this" "Don't smile" "say this" in what amounts to controlling issues. But our anti-hero will not be controlled or told what to do. That's the first mistake. I'm not saying Kyle was right but if any budding singer starts questioning the manager, they're not going to get far. Kind of like: He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.All of this wouldn't have been bad if it weren't for one small tiny bit of information. Drum roll, please. He's bad. He sucks. His singing talent ranks up there with Ashlee Simpson. It's hard to root for someone who -- while trying make his dream come true --- at 50! --- doesn't work like normal people. No job. Can you say lazy-ass? And the whining, and the "Why don't they accept me." song and dance. And after a few months of scraping the surface of the music industry, he spouts off, "Why don't I have a record deal by now." What? Actors are waiters. Writers work in low-level newspapers or mags -- whatever. This guy is above that. It's true. He wants his success now merely because he decided he wanted it. Whine. Whine Whine. His lover leaves him to return to nursing but I tell ya I wouldn't want that moron dispensing medical care to me. Both of them were useless. Airheads. The movie is useless. Unless you really like Whine and Cheeesy people stay away. Do not waste your money on the crappy lives of useless people, there are far more interesting things stuck to the bottom of your shoe.$LABEL$ 0
+The first movie at the Fangoria Festival in Vegas and the most challenging. It's not a movie for everyone. A number of the films that followed used predictable classic horror formulas to tell predictable stories. This picture seemed determined to do its own thing.Tom Savini showed some comic chops as the over the top villain. He dominated every scene he was in, flipping his cape about like Leslie Neilson playing Dracula. It was great to hear his explanation after the film. He had such a good sense of humor about the role.I was glad I didn't have too many preconceptions going in, because the movie offered a lot of surprises. The story was funny and profane and unusual. There was a lot of love lavished on the look. Most important, it had a weird edge to it. Unlike many of the movies that followed and tried to use a similar classic horror style, this was a movie that used its look for a purpose.There were a lot of movies at the Fangoria Festival with bigger budgets, but none that dared to be this different.$LABEL$ 1
+Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time.$LABEL$ 0
+A group of 7 gold prospectors head into a mine that was recently opened back up after an earthquake. Of course, they don't pay attention to local legend that something is down there and killing people. This low budget ($25,000) horror flick has a slight cult following and I'm not exactly sure why (unless it is because it is so obscure). I'll admit the last half hour is pretty entertaining, but the hour getting there is pure torture. Lots of walking and talking and our titular strangeness doesn't appear until 45 minutes in. Even in the extras co-writer Chris Huntley admits it commits the unforgivable sin of being boring. I would forgive them if they were strict amateurs, but this group graduated from USC so I would hope they know an exploitation film should be exploitive. Anyway, like I said, the last half hour is cool as three survivors battle the stop motion monster and there is a cool John Carpenter-like score. I wanted to see more of the monster, but it is literally on screen for 45 seconds.Even if the movie isn't the best, Code Red DVD has given this great attention. You have interviews and an audio commentary by director Melanie Anne Phillips, producer/actor Mark Sawicki and co-writer Huntley. The tales about how the film was made are pretty fascinating and inspiring (like a cave set being built in a backyard). Even more interesting are Sawicki and Huntley's USC student shorts, which are actually all better than the feature production. Huntley was a pretty talented artist and it is a shame he didn't go on to anything else. Sawicki has worked steadily in Hollywood as a visual effects and camera guy. The film's VHS is kind of legendary for how dark it was and I'm sure this is much better. However, you still get scenes where the only image are five helmet lights bouncing around in the blackness. Safe to say, the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE is still "horror film set in a mine" champ.$LABEL$ 0
+Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot.$LABEL$ 0
+I found myself very caught up in this movie, at least at the beginning, and any credit I give to this movie, is Lacey Chabert, she was fantastic!! But thats where it ends. I seem to be very good at figuring out who the killer is, and I like it when a movie is able to completely baffel me, but I felt out and out lied to, they whole time they lead you in one direction and then suddenly they decided to go in a completely different direction at the end, they gave no hit to it at all, thats not misleading that very bad writing and planning, someone did not think at all!I felt the movie would have been much better if they had stuck to the plot that the lead you on, they also seemed to not answer anything, why did Jane(maria) burn down the professor's house.Its a great pity as I felt it started out as a relatively good movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.$LABEL$ 0
+A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time.$LABEL$ 1
+While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But "Shoot or be Shot" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire "violence" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like "This is stupid".Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request "INSANE". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who "shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner "art" film, see "Free Enterprise" instead, it is a much better film.$LABEL$ 0
+NO WAY ! I hated Granny. First, she is way too tall -of course she is, it is Tom, whoever's brother, who's playing her- and I hate that thing she does when she brushes her fake silver hair back, but : there are funny parts in this movie. For instance, the fact that every single actor looks V.G. (very German), and also that they think that, even when left alone, they should pretend that that guy (Tom) is their actual "granny" or something. I specially liked -not- that moment where Charlotte leaves and starts walking to the nearest gas station to ask for some help. She suddenly finds herself in the middle of some woods (where were these before? nobody dares explaining) and turns, turns, turns a-r-oun-d like a ballerina, looking at the stars...and...ignoring the fact that GRANNY'S BEHIND HER, READY TO STRIKE !!! But, anyway, the music wasn't so bad, the haircuts were okay and the ending terribly provocative... Mmmmm... wish I had the German version.$LABEL$ 0
+I ordered this movie on the Internet as it is very difficult to get Turkish movies where we live. I've heard so much about the TV series from my friends and practically everyone in Turkey, I was expecting to see a breakthrough in Turkish cinema. What a disappointment.Me and my husband (who is an admirer of any movie with a bit of Turkish landscape and Turkish dialogues in it) only watched it all the way through because we had paid $20 for the DVD. Well, that was a boring way of wasting it.It was confusing, at times overacted, whereas other times underacted. The storyline was not only confusing, but adding a gay man walking with his dog on the beach and using some toilet humor in the script to make it 'Hollywood' didn't also work for me.The American characters were almost too stereotypical that it was neither funny nor realistic and like another user mentioned, the Turkish customs and lifestyle was irrelevant. The camera movements had no significance. Adding a few Dervishes (never seen in them in Kapadokya by the way) and broken plates -Greek style- only made the movie even more confusing. I am ashamed of this movie and all the noise the press has made about it. There are surely worthy movies made by Turkish directors which deserve more attention and respect.I give this movie 1 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Let me start out by saying I LOVE horror movies. Big budget, low budget, big name actors, no name actors, it doesn't matter. And when it comes to judging movies I am very forgiving. This movie however, is pretty bad.The actors show little or no emotion when delivering their lines and the acting is worse than many lower budget horror flicks I've seen. As the actors get killed off, you could care less. There is very little gore (I have no idea what film other reviewers watched when they say there is good gore in this one, because there isn't) and the special effects are substandard at best. They steal so much from so many better horror movies (Jeepers Creepers, Friday the 13th, Leprachaun) and it still doesn't help.Luckily I saw this on Showtime and didn't have to actually pay any extra money to see it or waste a spot in my Netflix queue on it. There are so many better horror movies out there and I recommend you see those instead of this big letdown.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. "Get thee out of here!" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie and watched it 20 times before I took it back to the store. Bill Paxton hired some first rate talent to make a good thriller with some interesting twists. The story is original and well written. Powers Booth and Paxton both deliver good performances. The story is told in an interesting manner with both flashbacks 20 years back, then spots in the present, alternating back and forth. This style of storytelling makes for a good thriller that can't get dull. Bill Paxton, please make more horror movies, you have the talent for it!$LABEL$ 1
+The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.$LABEL$ 0
+I've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: "The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? "frontal" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.$LABEL$ 0
+Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a lot of silliness about a woman from London who marries a tea planter from Ceylon whom she barely knows. It's full of cliches, and the Liz Taylor character is not believable. It has a marvelous set, some exotic location footage. It shows Taylor at the height of her beauty. She looks stunning.$LABEL$ 1
+A well-made and imaginative production, refreshingly free from cliché, this somewhat picaresque affair recounts a tale of a close friendship that develops between a man and a boy under less than ideal conditions: the man an escaped convict who has kidnapped the youth for his value as a hostage. Expertly directed by Alan Gibson with a fine sense for balanced narrative movement, the film provides freshness in nearly every scene, as felon Martin Steckert (Richard Harris), believing that his rejection for parole was particularly undeserved, contrives a convoluted but ultimately successful escape plan, following which his spontaneous nature comes to the fore as he flees to the lakeside residence of his childhood. Often bursting into song or dancing a few steps, the capricious Steckert gradually gains the trust and affection of his captive and, as police close in for an inevitable showdown, the tethered pair are seen to be a great deal alike in their responses to forms of rejection, as discerned by a psychiatrist (Lindsay Wagner) assigned to aid a zealous police lieutenant (James Coburn) who is in charge of the manhunt for Steckert and his "prisoner". This is an engrossing story, worth telling, a quickly-paced and novel adventure that profits from a capital performance by Harris, fine turns from Wagner, Coburn, and Karen Black, along with Justin Henry as the snatched lad, with an appropriately whimsical score contributed by Wilfred Josephs, and top-notch cinematography by Frank Watts, with all footage shot in a beautiful autumnal Ontario province.$LABEL$ 1
+For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do. One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs. * out of ***** (1 out of 5)$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, in defense of JOAN FONTAINE, it must be said that Ginger Rogers would have been terribly miscast as Alyce, the young British lady who has the title role. Fontaine makes a fetching picture as the heroine here, but her acting inexperience shows badly and her dancing is better left unmentioned. Fortunately, she went on to better things.But here it's FRED ASTAIRE, GEORGE BURNS and GRACIE ALLEN who get the top billing--and they are excellent. Fans of Burns & Allen will be surprised at how easily they fit into Astaire's dance routines. Especially interesting is the big fun house routine that won choreographer Hermes Pans an Oscar. They join Astaire in what has to be the film's most inventive highlight.Unfortunately, not much can be said for the slow pacing of the story--nor some of the stale situations which call for a lot of patience from the viewer. It must be said that some of the humor falls flat and the usual romantic misunderstandings that occur in any Fred Astaire film of this period are given conventional treatment. Only the musical interludes give the story the lift it needs.Some pleasant Gershwin tunes pop up once in awhile but not all of them get the treatment they deserve. The nice supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner, at his best in a polished comic performance as a conniving servant, Constance Collier and Montagu Love (as Joan's father mistaken as a gardener by Astaire).It's a lighthearted romp whenever Burns & Allen are around to remind us how funny they were in their radio and television days. Both of them are surprisingly adept in keeping up with Astaire's footwork.Director George Stevens makes sure that Joan Fontaine's hillside dance number with Fred is filmed at a discreet distance but clever camera-work cannot disguise the fact that she is out of her element as Astaire's dance partner, something she seems painfully aware of.$LABEL$ 1
+"The Dresser" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to "Terms of Endearment"-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much taste).Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production of "King Lear"; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end. Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and soul of the film.Grade: A$LABEL$ 1
+A classic 80's movie that Disney for some reason stopped making. I watched this movie everyday when I was in like 6th grade. I found a copy myself after scouring video stores. Well worth it though. One of my all time favs$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is all about reality, submarine warfare in WW2 was not a clean precise science. There were no computers giving exact enemy details, there was no precise instrumentation to 100% control the sub. Not all the crew went to fight with a song in their heart, and a smile on their dial.People with expectations of seeing a "pretty war" in this movie will be grossly disappointed, .............. GOOD, they deserve to be disappointed, they deserve to have reality shoved into their face.War is not clean, exact, fought by people about to break into song. It is endured by scared, cold/burnt, hungry, desperate people willing to do anything to survive."We Dive at Dawn" is a fine example portraying a desperate situation needing desperate actions.$LABEL$ 1
+Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clichéd drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trash—just another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't seen "Henry Fool", but after watching "Fay Grim" I'm not sure I want to. Maybe Hartley aims to be the "anti-thriller" director---he sure succeeded with this yawner. Based on the official description---woman discovers that her dead husband's manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security---I expected a taut geopolitical drama. Instead I got flimsy structure, goofy dialog, flabby characterizations, a convoluted plot, and a "tone" that shifts so often it suggests that Hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. I can hang for a long time with a frustrating, hard-to-follow plot (e.g. "Duplicity") because I figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. Even when they don't, or they do but they leave lingering questions (e.g. "Duplicity"), sharp writing and acting can hold one's interest. But half-way through "Fay Grim" I reached a deadly realization---I didn't know what was going on, and I didn't care. Too bad, because I really like Parker Posey, reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent, estranged wife and indifferent, clueless mother to tough, shrewd international "player" capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. There's also bad casting. Jeff Goldblum can be very good, but he's not capable of overcoming miscasting as a CIA operative. He looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as I was watching him in it. His CIA sidekick is worse; he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of "American Idol" (are there really young CIA agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads?). Then there's the sticky question of the characters' ages. Goldblum was 54 when he made "Fay Grim"; Thomas Jay Ryan, who plays "Henry Fool", was 44. Neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. Yet, a key point in the story is that they served as CIA agents in Nicaragua "back in the '70s." Goldblum's character would've been in his 20s then; Henry Fool would've been a teenager. Was Hartley being "quirky" or lazy? The problems are too numerous to list...$LABEL$ 0
+Begrudgingly gave it a 3 - one point each for Fonda, Stanwyck, and the supporting cast.Never saw this one before - am watching it right now and it has just gotten to the part where Henry Fonda is carrying Babs over the threshold. If I continue watching, it will be just to see if Fonda and Stanwyck will be able to pull this one out of the dumper.But after reading the other viewer comments, I'm not very optimistic.The opening ski scenes were enough to put me off my lunch. The voice-overs were obviously done in a sound studio, and the editing between the exterior shots and the closeups was horrendous. I do not know that much about the technology of that era - but I can't believe there wasn't something they could do to make it more believable.My second gasp of disbelief was when Fonda wiped out and (I imagine due to the extreme velocity of travel) he is burrowed head first into the snow up to his torso - Stanwyck pulls him out with obvious staged difficulty - and, (I imagine because she is such an experienced doctor) does not react at all to his apparently unconscious state and limp posture.Look, I'm completely capable of suspending my disbelief, but I couldn't get over the fact that she had just jostled a man with a possible head injury and that he might be paralyzed for life. Not my idea of big yuks.So, as I finish this comment, we have just seen Kirk's first jealous outburst, and Dr. Hunt is off to perform an appendectomy! I'm not sure which I hate more - the script, the background music, or the story!! Argghhhh! I'm done. Game over. Click.$LABEL$ 0
+The Power started off looking promising but soon became boring and tedious to watch. The plot is about an ancient Aztec doll that takes possession of those who own it. The idea is "decent enough" and this film would have been fairly entertaining had it been done better. However after the first ten minutes or so it soon becomes boring; we don't get any good death scenes and have to listen to loads of talking. At the end one of the possessed men meets his death by melting away in front of two girls, but it's not very interesting and definitely not gory.I wouldn't recommend The Power to any horror or slasher fan as there's little to be gained from it.$LABEL$ 0
+Another FINE effort by America's most UNDERrated filmmaker. His knowledge on the subject of racism is STAGGERING, and IMPRESSES me on more than one level. Accusations that Lee is really just a devious little racist, a poisonous dwarf who opportunistically exploits Hollywood's Affirmative Action system to make movies of inferior quality is utter NONSENSE, mere Right-Wing propaganda. The very notion that Lee would resort to misusing the current climate of political correctness in America in order to produce hate-filled anti-white movies is simply FALSE and malicious.Some of Lee's detractors even go so far as to suggest that GOTB glorifies African-Americans, while putting down other races: obviously, another FALSEHOOD disseminated by people who are AGAINST peaceful co-existence between different races in America and elsewhere.My favourite scene in the movie is a lengthy dialogue early on between the rich black Republican and the others in the bus. The views presented by that man are simply WRONG - all across the board. 100% UNTRUE. He LACKS education, unlike the brilliantly INFORMED guys who quite DESERVEDLY throw him off the bus.TERRIFIC performances, and an INTELLIGENT script make for a viewing experience that has been RARELY rivaled by any political movies made since.I also want to point out the incessant LIES that the Million-Man March had only 80,000 people taking part in it!(And now all you have to do is take the antonyms of all the words written in capital letters...)So what message does Lee send here? If someone doesn't agree with your political views, you simply apply violence and throw him off the bus. I thought the movie said "get ON the bus"...?Apparently, Mr.Lee is for bus-segregation after all, i.e. is no different than those KKK lunatics before him: the bus is only for those blacks who are in line with the Democratic Party's line of thinking. So much for "freeing the slaves"...The end-credits: "This movie was entirely financed by black people." And distributed and marketed by a major Hollywood studio run by Jews and whites whom Farrakhan despises...$LABEL$ 0
+Another first: this French movie is my introduction to the world Eric Rohmer. Perhaps I'm a bit hasty when I say that this is probably my last Rohmer movie but I was immediately turned off by the way Rohmer relies on monotonous philosophical conversations that never get to the point. There is a scene in the movie where the characters discuss love that I thought was never going to end. Honestly, no matter how much I tried, I couldn't understand why Rohmer is so highly regarded among cinephiles. He struck me as being one of those obnoxiously petulant people who are filled with hot air. If this is a sample of what his movies are about, I'm not interested. I don't care much for French cinema (usually reflective and speculative to a fault), so maybe I'm biased.$LABEL$ 0
+One Night at McCool's is one of those films that starts with an awful amount of promise but as the film goes on it becomes silly and loses it's way big time. Liv Tyler plays a manipulative woman who tries to get her own way by flaunting her body to every man she meets ,all of which fall under her spell.There are a few funny moments in this but they get fewer and fewer as the film deteriorates into a comedy farce. Michael Douglas who plays the assassin is good as is Liv Tyler, although she does look like she had put on a bit of weight since armaggedon. This is ok but is only memorable for the scene in which Liv Tyler washes her car, you will know what i mean when you see it fella's! Shwing!!!!! 7 out of 10 (just).$LABEL$ 1
+This is a must see for independant movie fans, but it also holds up well against mainstream movies. I think we have the makings of the next Woody Allen orTrentin Tarrentino here.The budget is painfully low. No special effects whatsoever, and they seemingly used ambient lighting (shot in digital video.) -And yet this movie grabs hold of you and never lets go. The screenplay is somewhat bizarre, yet the actors and director pull it off with complete realism. It has humor, it has intrigue, and it has pathos, and it all works together.No point in describing the details. If you want to see an independantmasterpiece, a virtual lesson in how to make a low budget flick that really works, see this one.-Oh yeah, it's also REALLY entertaining.$LABEL$ 1
+The plot of "Sally of the Sawdust" is the usual melodramatic stuff-- an orphan, rags-to-riches-- but the film rises above most silents thanks to three people: This is not, of course, D. W. Griffith's masterpiece, but it does showcase his film-making savvy in full maturity. He uses all his innovations, which are techniques we take for granted now: close-ups, cross-cutting, a mobile camera, and the ability to modify acting from theatrical exaggeration to cinematic subtlety.W. C. Fields also showcases his skills-- not his signature gruff delivery, but his remarkable dexterity as a physical comedian. He does a few inventive juggling acts, cut too short to be fully appreciated, and some very deft pickpocketing, but it seems that every prop that comes within reach gets manipulated for comic effect-- hat, cane, car roof, dog, cash. He's a joy to behold.Finally, there's Carol Dempster. Much has been said against this actress, but her performance here is also richly comic. She was 22 at the time, playing a teenager, and her approach to the role is a combination of grace and awkwardness that may not be wholly convincing, but she truly engages the eye when she's on screen-- particularly when she's dancing. She's not a beauty--though she's positively luminous in the one scene where she's gussied up like a Talmadge sister-- but her plainness only adds to Sally's character, especially in the many moments when she shows very obvious affection for Fields as her guardian/"father." Few, if any, Hollywood performers could compete with Fields when it came to comedy, but Griffith gives his leading lady every chance to match her co-star, and Dempster absolutely holds her own.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the sequel to Octopus.Pff... OK. A lot of stock footage, but pretty good. I'm surprised that they actually had a giant robot octopus that actually didn't look that bad! I was actually quite surprised by that.The movie overall was just OK fun. It never explained how the octopus got so big, and isn't linked it anyway to the first. But it was still fun.The ending me and my friend laughed at. Basically, after blowing the octopus up once, the two main characters launch a bomb, and five explosions, most stock footage, appear on screen! We joked that they went to the dollar store and bought a 'five missiles in one' toy! Believe me, it has to be seen to believe! Overall just stupid fun. Worth giving a chance, buying if it's cheap.$LABEL$ 0
+This begins a wager between Edgar Allen Poe and a journalist...Poe bets that the man can not spend an entire night in a creepy castle. Well, of course he can, but will he come out unscathed? Hard to say with all these strange people that aren't supposed to be there wandering around, including the icy Barbara Steele. This is a fairly odd film in that the presentation is both in French and English, and switches back and forth a few times. Perhaps this is done because bits of dialog were lost? It's also rather dark and claustrophobic, being that one doesn't see much beyond a small circle of light that candles and such generate, plus there's a feel of dread and impending doom pretty much at all times. This version (on Synapse) is also uncensored and I wondered what might be censored in a film from 1964 until I saw the topless scene, I guess that might be it. Overall this is pretty good and in gloomy black and white. Barbara Steele definitely makes the movie too. 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a wonderful look, you should pardon the pun, at 22 women talking about breasts-- theirs, their mothers', other women's, and how they affect so many aspects of their lives. Young girls, old women, and everyone in between (with all shapes, sizes, configurations, etc) talk about developing, reacting, celebrating, hiding, enhancing, or reducing their breasts.It's charming, delightful, sad, funny, and everything in between. Intercut with documentary footage and clips from those famous old "young women's films" that the girls got taken to the cafeteria to see, the interviews are a fascinating window for men who love women & their breasts into what the other half has to say when they don't know you're listening.$LABEL$ 1
+I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: "No refunds!" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell "This movie SUCKS!" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.$LABEL$ 0
+In "Lassie Come Home," "National Velvet," and "The Courage of Lassie," Elizabeth Taylor was eleven years old … Nevertheless, her charm and beauty were extraordinary, and what she lacked in talent and experience was well hidden in a fine production that was nominated for five Academy Awards… As horse-trainer or dog-owner, as spurned wife or mistress, Liz is a female who is absorbed in the giving and receiving of love: devotion to the object of passion is the center of her life… Little Liz lavishes love on horses and dogs with remarkable intensity… Ecstatic; a dreamer with a turbulent emotional life, persistent, the young Liz dedicates herself to the prize-winning horse the way she later devotes herself to men…Anticipating her later images of young sex goddess, Liz as Velvet is both saintly and mature… Howard Barnes, in the New York Herald Tribune, called her a child who 'lights up with the integrity of a great passion.' Directed by Clarence Brown with loving attention to detail, the movie that made her a star is a big bestseller from another era set in Sussex, England, where Velvet Brown, a butcher's daughter, teams with a vagabond teenager named Mi Taylo (Mickey Rooney) to train for competition a horse she's won in a raffle… From the coastal plains with its beaches, to the rolling hills, thatched cottages, and miles of country walks, "National Velvet" is the product of a bygone era in movie-making… Following closely the structure of the popular Enid Bagnold novel, the movie is part horse story, part family portrait: scenes of training and riding are balanced by cozy family scenes, vignettes about young love and sermons from Mom on the virtues of courage and endurance…The Browns are a noble version of Hollywood rustic… Dedicated to a sober work ethic, they live quiet, exemplary lives… Mrs. Brown (Anne Revere) is the very spirit of plain-folk wisdom; the spokeswoman for common sense and fair play, she knows well enough not to silence the semi-hysterical energy of her horse-crazy daughter, and she lets the girl have her dream…Anne Revere won an Oscar as Velvet's mother, as did editor Robert J. Kern…$LABEL$ 1
+I can never figure if this is the Artiest Soap Opera ever produced, or the Soapiest Art Movie. No matter, John Seale's cinematogaphy is utterly ravishing. Ondaatje's novel is not reduced, but for once, elevated to film. If there is a fault, it is in the original novel, not in Anthony Minghella's beautiful movie. Anyone who has a problem with it's length almost certainly has not read the book, and probably cannot read. I do not like repeating adjectives, but ravishing serves the purpose. Apart from the storyline, the players excel. But it is the Australian sense of light and shade that ultimately triumphs. Like some antipodean Dutch Master, Seale uses a blast of light, where Van Rijn would have used shade. One could weep for cinematography this magnificent.$LABEL$ 1
+This video was my first introduction to the Residents, and I couldn't stop playing it for the past three days. The visuals are dynamite and more inventive and technically complex than any I have ever seen on the big screen or small.The DVD loses points, however, for the pointless addition of new music. The original Residents music is unlike anything else you've ever heard, and will really tweak your brain in the best possible way. The new music however is uniformly uninteresting and in most cases is rather bad in comparison to some of the classic tracks. Also, the uncompleted Vileness Fats video feels VERY incomplete, and I could only fathom the plot of the story from extensive reading of the notes on the disc.Speaking of notes on the disc, this DVD features lots of cool easter eggs that will probably appeal to long-time fans of the Residents. Hint: look for icons on the notes pages that shouldn't be there.From a technical standpoint, the disc is one of the best DVD transfers available. There is virtually no observable pixelization, and only a little edginess in strong contrast points.Kudos for a top notch presentation. This disc really deserves your attention.$LABEL$ 1
+`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress. A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10.$LABEL$ 0
+Most of the comments have been positive but I would like to add that viewers should also focus on the sets. The set designer used a lot of beautiful art deco treatments along with beautiful buildings, stairs, doors, furniture and so forth. It is worth paying attention to. The movie is driven by characterization and symbolism which is very rich. All the gangster actors were cast - it was like seeing old friends and it was a treat. The dialog was amusing at times but stilted at times and I suppose it was meant to be that way. This is a film buff's film. It was made by people, for people who love the medium. Don't miss this one.$LABEL$ 1
+i totally loved this movie, tried to buy it and can't find it. a must see, a movie you can watch again and again, funny but also a tear jerker in one. really good album for the movie. it's a really good 80's movie, i wish i could find a copy to buy this movie, cause i would,the actors in it acted really good.there's a lot of people out there that probably could relate to this movie.that's what makes this movie so good. so go out and try to rent this one, you won't regret it. it's an older movie but it's worth watching, i would not be surprised if they made a remake of this movie soon, but i'm sure it would not be the same. anyone who hasn't seen it, go rent it.$LABEL$ 1
+I went to the pre-screening of "Rory O'Shea Was Here." I like this movie better than I expected, because the excellent casts and the powerful performance. It's a film about the friendship of two handicapped young man. Rory is free spirit young man who wants to be independent regardless his Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can only move his two fingers but he can talk eloquently and help his new pal, Michael, who has cerebral palsy and is significantly speech impaired. I guess that's enough to start with a weeping drama. Well, it is. But with inspiring messages and deeply moving performances. It made me looking at my life for things I take for granted. What would I do if all I can do is to move my two fingers? I should feel grateful for what I have and what I am capable of doing. This is a good flick, although it could have been better.$LABEL$ 1
+My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson. We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in "editing in camera", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics). Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos.$LABEL$ 1
+'Bluff' has been showing for a good few months at movie theatres in Bogota, and today I finally got round to seeing it. I didn't really know what to expect at all, but was very happily surprised. It is a crime comedy of the same ilk as Snatch etc, and it manages to nicely balance elements of suspense with comedy. The style of the film is established early on with cheerful music and the Argentinean narrator who makes asides direct to camera -- odd the first time, but subsequently fitting naturally.With my less-than-perfect Spanish, I still found the plot and dialogue easy enough to follow, and plenty of the comedy is situational. My Colombian girlfriend was laughing a lot at the various portrayals of people from different regions and social classes which did pass me by somewhat, but for instance a well-acted portrayal of a pompous idiot in a position of power is funny in any language.I think it is to this film's credit that it has something of a global flavour: I wasn't often reminded that this was Colombia that I was watching. Yet it is important to note that many wealthy Bogotanos do live like some of the characters in this film, and it is not a mis-portrayal of Bogota or Colombian society in any way, just a *selective* portrayal -- as is any film supposedly portraying a 'real' situation/culture.I don't know how much of the comedy would be lost in subtitles, but if it comes to your country definitely go check it out: it is a very slick and enjoyable movie with great elements of black humour. And all in a tightly packaged 90 minutes.$LABEL$ 1
+I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.$LABEL$ 0
+I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey.$LABEL$ 0
+Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Most Stoogephiles consider this to be the best Stooges short bar none, and they're right. Curly is a scream dressed up in drag as "Senorita Cucaracha", and Moe and Larry are in top form as "Senor Mucho" and "Senor Gusto", respectively. Christine McIntyre's beautiful operatic voice is given full rein--she actually was a trained opera singer--and it's wonderful. The great Gino Corrado is hilarious as a pompous Italian singer terrorized by the Stooges at a society party. Some truly funny gags, good direction and very tight editing make this rise to the very top of the Stooges' prolific output. What's even more amazing is that Curly was having severe health problems at the time, and in several of the shorts he made during this period, you can see that he is obviously ill; his timing is way off, he speaks very slowly and haltingly, and has trouble getting around. Fortunately, his health was in an upswing when he made this film, and it shows. Classic Stooge comedy, and enjoyed by even non-Stooge fans (I had a girlfriend who couldn't stand the Stooges, but even she laughed at this one). A must-see.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the touching story of two families in Israel and the relationships within each family. Each family has a gay son. The stories are interrelated at that point but this film is about all of the family members, not just the two sons. The portraits of each of the family members in both families are well drawn and the story is consistently interesting if a bit bleak.$LABEL$ 1
+I love documentaries. The Andy Goldsworthy doc was great.I looked forward to this one - but was very disappointed. I knew of Kahn and was intrigued by the idea of his lonely death in a Penn Station men's room. There must be a story here, I mistakenly believed.The only story here is of sadly deluded women who had affairs with an ugly little famous married man. In the absence of anything like an explanation for this guy's horrible behavior, we're given endlessly repeated clips of Kahn walking around and painfully long - supposedly contemplative - shots of his soulless buildings.Actually, some of the buildings are interesting but the thrust of the film asks us to think about the guy himself. The overwrought soundtrack references an emotional tug that is entirely absent from the film. Kahn's apparent gifts do not excuse his behavior or martyr his mistresses. This film seems to want to give Kahn the great artiste's free pass and thus make the director and his mother sympathetic figures - I don't buy it.$LABEL$ 0
+Rush in Rio is simply an amazing DVD. This concert is one of the peak moments of the history of Rush and they deliver their music brilliantly and with more power than ever.I was lucky enough to actually be in this concert, and not only that, I was in the very first row grabbing the gate that separated the audience from the stage!! It's the first and only time I've seen a Rush concert live and it was a dream come true for me. I have no words to accurately describe this experience but I can tell you it is one of the highlights of my life.Some people complain about the sound of this DVD saying it is not very clear and polished, but the sound you listen is real, true to how it was in the concert. It is raw and powerful and so authentic that every time I watch it I go back and re-live that beautiful moment. Many artists record live shows and then they make a lot of tweaking, so the final product is far from what the actual concert really was. Sure you can achieve a very sophisticated and polished sound this way but you don't get the real thing. This is not the case with Rush in Rio, this is the real deal!! I admit that I enjoy those fancy sounding concert DVD's, I love music and the sound is a very important aspect, but it's refreshing to listen to a concert that is so honest. You listen to Rush just the way they sound in a live performance, no tricks, no tweaks. This is a real live concert DVD.I highly recommend Rush in Rio, the set-list is fantastic and the performances by Geddy, Alex and Neil are mind-blowing. Not to mention the crowd, you can see how much they love Rush and sing along to every tune, even YYZ which is an instrumental!! I actually appear singing twice; in Tom Sawyer I sing "always hopeful yet discontent" and in Earthshine I sing "only reflect". It's just a few seconds but I simply couldn't believe my eyes when I saw myself in a rush DVD!! Awesome!! I hope you enjoy this magnificent concert from the greatest band on Earth.$LABEL$ 1
+An example of genius filmaking. The epic story of three major stages of life for a young boy told with eloquence and raw fearlessness. Rarely does a film come along that causes me to out loud say during most of the viewing, "this is a really good film...." again and again. That is exactly what happened when I watched this film. I really do not understand how anyone could not like it. I found myself at moments crying and laughing at the very same moment, unable to control how I felt about the scene. The acting is outstanding. Eric Mabius- why is he not all over movie screens? He was really extraordinary. His seemingly effortless attempt on the screen impacted me in deep visceral ways. I thank him. In my opinion, Eric Schaeffer is one of the best filmakers around, and I hope he continues to rise to the challenges that he faces while trying to give us art in the face of ferocious commercial filmaking.$LABEL$ 1
+For those with little time on their hands, I'll sum it up quickly, in one word...pathetic. There are a lot of good examples as to why this movie fits perfectly under that description. So much so that you can barely go through 2 minutes of screen time without seeing something completely stupid and pointless forced upon you. Want a fully naked woman in the first 10 minutes? You got it! The reason she appears is so pointless though that it really sets the tone for the rest of this piece of juvenile crap. You can almost glimpse into the deluded minds of the 12 year old boys that wrote this piece of garbage just by watching this crap that they expect the public to actually pay for!!??!!! I've watched many a movie franchise decline over the years, but American Pie;Beta House has to be one of the worst offenders when you consider that despite the average nature of the original movie, it's still a thousand times funnier than this dreck.The plot is predictable, and sometimes you actually feel like you're watching a school play. The things that happen in this movie are so unrealistic that it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to actually watch it (we're talking Star Wars levels of suspension, like the kind you need to convince yourself Jar Jar is real)The plot is paper thin and mostly the events that transpire are only there to show another pair of breasts or set up yet another pathetic joke. There is no acting talent to speak of, all you get is a bunch of pretty boys trying to make us laugh. And ohhh how they fail!!!! Every gag falls flat and the only thing I laughed at was how socially unaware the scriptwriters appear to be. How else can you explain the bulls**t they try to pass off as a story?They pass up every opportunity to do something worthwhile and entertaining in favour of badly written, lowest common denominator nonsense. The characters have to complete a set number of tasks before they are accepted as members of Beta House, but this is dealt with mostly by a series of very brief montages that imply that they are completing the tasks but we see little to no evidence of it actually happening. Its a very lazy way of telling a story. It also misses opportunities to be funny in doing so.(Imagine say The Wizard of Oz where all the important events happened offscreen instead of on it, and all we see is Dorothy high-fiving the Scarecrow every now and again and saying "Gee that sure was a great adventure we just had back then") Lazy. Lazy. LAZY!!!!The female characters have little or nothing to say. All they do is get naked for no apparent reason and are used as visual props through most of the movie. You braindeads that only seek T&A will not be disappointed, but for that reason alone shame on you. If you buy this on DVD you will be contributing to the downfall of society in your own special way. Congratulations.$LABEL$ 0
+I so much enjoyed this little musical fantasy I bought a copy to share with my friends. It is a pleasant and diverting change from our mundane lives..... I believe that we can all benefit from an active fantasy life, one of joy and indulgence, I heartily recommend it!The performance is excellent, and the music uplifting!$LABEL$ 1
+A friend of mine asked: "Doesn't one have to be pro-euthanasia in order to like this movie? Is it a mistake of the movie to infer most quadriplegics want to end their lives?" Interesting questions.As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one quadriplegic who wanted to end his life in The Sea Inside. Think Ramón Sampedro addressed this in the movie as well. It is he who wants to die. It is he who is fighting for his right to decide his death. He is speaking for himself and not other quadriplegics. Though his pioneering work, depending on one's perspective, may prove beneficial or damaging to quadriplegics down the road, his primary objective is a personal one. But one thing this movie does (my opinion anyway), is that it forces us the viewers to ask ourselves the inferring questions my friend so succinctly put forth.After my first viewing of The Sea Inside, I walked home in a conflicted blur. I struggled to reconcile with this exasperating notion; why would Ramón want to die? Given the love, care and sacrifices so unconditionally showered on Ramón by the people surrounding him, why would he doggedly cling on to his hurtful decision? Then, on my second viewing, a shared thought between Ramón and the lawyer lady entered my consciousness. It threw up a telling observation: "...total dependency comes at the expense of intimacy." Most human beings crave for such an intimacy. Of course, how much we value such "needs", depends largely on the individual.As a person with a familial-biased sensibility, I empathised strongly with the caregivers in this movie. Why can't Javier consider the sacrifice and the love from his family and friends? Is he blind to it all? I would think not. The miracle of The Sea Inside therefore, is its insightful depiction of a very humanistic tug of war. When we are faced with the guardianship of a sane but incapacitated loved one, whom has expressed a calm, conscious and rational intent to die, what then is the right thing to do? Is caring for and keeping this loved one alive, against his or her will, a pious gesture? Does it show up the worth of our love? Or does it merely soothe our "selfish" fears of irreplaceable loss? With so much understanding accorded to caregivers, wouldn't their invalid charges, by submitting themselves to the total dependency of others for survival, also be an overlooked act of sacrifice? Rhetorical or not, how much is "dignity" worth to an individual? Is living (or dying) with dignity a privilege or a right? If we really care and love a person, should we also respect their eventual decisions in life (as in death)? A torrent of questions the movie might have asked, answers to which, I'm in no position to provide.In our eagerness to intellectually demarcate the merits of pro-life or pro-choice, we run the risk of ignoring a sea of grey that's engulfing the people most intimately affected, the caregivers and the ones they care for. The Sea Inside hence attempted to present the delicate yet complex relationship dynamics between them. Intuitively, this film understands one thing; that the nature of "sacrifice" is never one-sided. In this tug of war, we should endeavour not to win arguments, but to intently observe and hopefully determine, who is the "stronger" party to make that sacrifice.The Sea Inside is a sobering film. It opened my eyes to things I don't wanna see. And for that, I am grateful.$LABEL$ 1
+I had the good fortune of reading the book before seeing the movie. It was an epic of adolescence, a dream of summers gone, a great potential indie film or big budget drama. It somehow got into the hands of a hack, who clearly took notes watching Boogie Nights and Rushmore without actually learning anything at all. The script loses the meat of the book in favor of forced emotional notes and low brow gags. I feel sorry for the actors, since the characters in the book were rich and textured, but cut down to embarrassing charactures in the film. Mason Gamble is great when given the opportunity, as is Dylan Baker, but the skeleton that remains of the story plays out like a bad after school special. Poor people = GOOD, Rich people = BAD. Though it's almost worth watching to see the Southern California beach where Gary Sinise parks his trailer which is meant to pass for a bay in Delaware. It's a good book, but an embarrassing turn for first time director Mills Goodloe. K.$LABEL$ 0
+This is not a new film. It is a re-cut of 1994's "Emmanuelle, Queen of the Galaxy", and it has been significantly truncated. Warning: Many characters appear in the credits that have been cut from the movie!If you want to see this one in its original form, pick up "Queen" - avoid this one at all costs, as the cuts make it even choppier than it was originally.$LABEL$ 0
+It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.$LABEL$ 0
+For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.$LABEL$ 0
+If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.Absolute tripe.$LABEL$ 0
+If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+The final season of Roseanne was a roller coaster ride of crazy. This final episode does just what a previous comment says, it tells us that as much as we might have thought we knew the characters we did not. Roseanne reaches back to season one, and tells us that this show has been her rendition of her life. She says in this final episode that she changed events and people as she sees fit. Scott was not really with Leon, but he existed. Mark and David married opposite wives in real life, and Dan died when she made him live. As events happened in her life, she changed them in her writing. Don't we all wish we could do that. Don't we all have a moment in time that we wish we could just use an eraser and change to our liking. This is what she did with the entire episode. And to another comment I would say that I don't feel cheated, the family was real in my mind, she just changed the way that events happened in their lives. An A+ ending to an A+ show!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Ever notice how in his later movies Burt Reynolds' laugh sounds like screeching brakes?Must have been hanging out with Hal Needham too much.And from the looks of "Stroker Ace", WAY too much.Can you believe this was based on a book? Neither could I, but it was. And probably not a best-seller, I'll wager. Burt's another good-old-boy in the NASCAR circuit who hitches up with Beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. Anderson provides what love interest there is and Nabors does his umpteenth Gomer Pyle impression as faithful mechanic/best friend Lugs. A lot of people here are friends of Burt's or Hal's. Others must have needed the work. And even real NASCAR drivers get in on the act, and look to have more talent than those with SAG cards. As far as laughs go, Bubba Smith (pre-"Police Academy") gets them as Beatty's chauffeur. And Petersen, in full Elvira mode, gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know Lugs real well. REAL WELL.It's a shame that Burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like "Stroker Ace" where it didn't matter whether he bothered to act or not. They didn't bother to write a character for him, why bother to act?Two stars. Mostly for Petersen, and for the out-takes at the end. Now THEY'RE funny.$LABEL$ 0
+Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film!$LABEL$ 0
+There was a great film to be made about Steve Biko. Sadly this wasn't it. Denzel Washington - never the most flexible of actors - is totally unable to convey the great charisma that Biko had. Attenborough's big crowd scenes are laughable. The Soweto massacre wasn't like this, three neat lines of children ( some doing cartwheels!) marching happily into the guns of the soldiers. With Biko dead the film rapidly descends into farce. If the struggle against Apartheid was anything it was a black people's struggle yet somehow we are all supposed to be gripped by the escape of a white man and his family. I'm sure Donald Woods was a decent man and he would be the first to say that Biko was important while he wasn't. Penelope Wilton's accent is pure Hampshire and she seems completely unaware that she is in South Africa at all. at all. The Wood's family dog gets more lines than the black maid. As the family make their escape one the women I saw the film with - incidentally one of only about a dozen black people in a large, full cinema - whispered "This is like the sound of music." She had a point.Overall this is a film by a well-intentioned if somewhat inept white liberal about a radical black people's struggle. And really South Africa needs well-intentioned white liberals like it needs a hole in the head.$LABEL$ 0
+"Citizen X" tells the story of "The Butcher of Rostov", nickname for a heinous and perverse Russian serial killer who claimed 52 lives from 1978-92. The film focuses on the novice detective (Rea) who doggedly pursued the killer against all odds in the face of an uncooperative bureaucracy in self-serving and convenient denial. An HBO product for t.v., the film offers a solid cast, good performances, spares the audience much of the grisly details, but plays out like a docudrama sans the stylistics of similar Hollywood fare. An even and straight-forward dramatization of a serious and comparatively little known story more interesting than "Jack the Ripper". (B)$LABEL$ 1
+When I first got wind of this picture, it was just called "Shepherd" and was supposed to be the film that would put JCVD back into chances of doing theatrical shtuff. I was very well excited about the whole piece.By the time it was titled "The Shepherd: Border Patrol," I was tap-dancing in excitement for this flick. With Isaac Fluorentine at the helm of directing, and JJ Perry pulling stunt coordination, I almost peed me pants in anticipation. Pics were released of JCVD kicking 8 different kinds of arse as well as Scott Adkins playing what I thought was the villain, and I was mind-blown in excitement. I thought it was going to be another epic martial arts situation like Lone Wolf McQuade.Then it came out. I ordered it off Blockbuster online for $20 and was ready for anything. The reviews from vandammefan.net kinda had my ideas alittle altered, but I braced myself. The mail came on day 4 and I ripped open the package. My initial plan was to rush upstairs, rip the face off the cardboard packaging, then smash the case in the proper dynamics so the disc would land in my DVD player. However, I stared at the case for 10 minutes then placed the disc in my player and watched the film.By the time it was over, I was cool as a fool in the pool. The Shepherd is certainly one of my all-time favorite direct-to-video films ever and makes Derailed look like even more of the toilet mess that it is. Sure, some of the fights ran a twee bit short, but they were still VERY awesome. The shootouts were superb, as was Scott Adkins, who SHOULD have been the villain, unlike the forgettable Steven Lord.I highly recommend this flick. Seriously.$LABEL$ 1
+First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.$LABEL$ 0
+Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.$LABEL$ 1
+The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn.$LABEL$ 0
+I had heard of John Garfield, but, didn't know him. I loved this movie. I had never heard of it. I just picked it up randomly. John Garfield is a boxer in the movie. He had been in real life also so he knew his part. He was a fugitive throughout the movie. Someone else killed a man. He character was blamed. He is befriended by a family who has questions and is not quite sure what to make of him. All sorts of minor plots ensue. My favorite was the scary swimming scene in a water tower where the water was deep and one Dead End Kid couldn't swim, AND none of them could get out.John's character saves the day. The Dead End Kids were great as his friends and followers. One of them right to the very end. Ann Sheridan played the family's daughter and John's eventual love interest. She was believable, but not lovable in my opinion-the only weak link in the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening. 4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything. I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch!$LABEL$ 1
+I disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching "stoner classic." That would be like calling Singles a "grunge film." The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened.$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoy watching people doing breakdance, especially if they do it as well as in the best scenes of this movie which takes you to a disco club called "Roxy". Especially at Christmas time, because there also appears a "MC Santa Claus".Even if this is an old film, and even if I have videotaped it from TV, when the State Movie Archive of Finland showed this in the summer of 2004 on their own big screen, I went there to check it out. It's much more enjoyable on big screen than on TV.Even if many people here think that watching this on big screen is a waste of money for the ticket cost, I disagree with this and I think that when I paid my ticket, I got the money's worth by seeing this, as it is on big screen, especially seated on front row of the cinema, an unforgettable experience, and much better than just on video.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is about a group of extra terrestrial gay black men exterminating females on Earth, in order to create a gay Universe.I watched it with the intent of seeing how bad it was. Still, I was shocked at how bad it was. It looked more like a film made 50 years ago. The acting, if any, is ultra bad. The sets and props are so ridiculously fake, making any college film look mega budget. And the special effects are laughably simple, indeed jaw dropping as others have commented, but jaw droppingly embarrassing.One has to be severely intoxicated, or in an altered state of consciousness in order to appreciate this film. If I was from Denmark, I would be severely embarrassed and humiliated that my countrymen produced such a horrifyingly bad film.$LABEL$ 0
+I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.$LABEL$ 0
+It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.$LABEL$ 0
+While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.$LABEL$ 0
+The film isn't perfect by any means but despite this it is very fun and amusing to watch. I am the first one to agree that Victor Fox isn't really that attractive and his music and style are pretty cheesy. I also agree that the film has some odd distractions and some scenes don't work well. So what? If it makes you smile and you enjoy it who cares? Does every film have to make sense? Does every film have to be perfect? No. A person could get razed admitting that they love this film. Again, so what? It's got lovable characters, it's well shot, the acting is mostly good, it never becomes too maudlin or dramatic, it's quirky. Look at how many people love I Dream of Jeannie. Is it perfect? Heck no! And while this is very different, I say check it out and you'll be in a good mood after you see it.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I was watching this movie and getting increasingly bored with the silly plot that was going nowhere, when suddenly, the story takes a surreal turn for the worse and has an actor playing herself. Oh how I guffawed. Because it's sooooo funny, isn't it? We know Julia Roberts is playing the character of Tess, and here they are, in the film, cracking the joke that the character of Tess looks a bit like Julia Roberts. So Julia plays someone impersonating Julia. How well she does this, we'll never know, because 99.999% of the audience don't actually know Julia Roberts personally (and reading about her in Hello magazine doesn't count). And then Bruce Willis turns up! Apparently, he's Julia Roberts' best friend. Well, he is in the film... how would I know whether or not Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts even know each other? I'm not in the least bit interested in the personal lives of actors - I just pay my money and expect them to do the job they're paid to do. Anyway they start cracking jokes about the plot twist in the film where Willis (rather unconvincingly) plays a psychiatrist... the one with the little kid in it... you know the one? I don't, I've forgotten what it's called. Willis even drops in a comment about how well that film did at the box office - how modest of you Mr Willis!The problem is that, not only are these scenes pointless and horribly horribly self-indulgent, it also remind us, the viewers, that we're simply watching a bunch of actors strutting around and getting paid vast sums of money for very little effort. You see, when I see a movie, I want to suspend disbelief and forget that I'm watching actors - I want to believe in the story I'm watching. When you start pulling the scenery down, mid- movie, you simply ruin the illusion for me.You know that a TV series has jumped the shark when it starts introducing celebrities, playing themselves (stand up and be counted The Simpsons, Friends, etc.), but this is the first time I've seen a movie jump the shark. I usually stay away from movies like that (e.g. Scary Movie, The Naked Gun, etc.). The trouble is, I honestly never thought the Ocean's 11 films would go in this direction. What a shame.So with suspension of disbelief thrown out the window, and the plot now languishing in the movie then cracks the most wicked joke of all on the audience - the heist actually happened way back in the story, and the final 90 minutes or so of the film was pointless posturing. Yes, that's right: Steven Soderwhatsit and his actor friends all get up, point at us the audience and say, "Ha haaa... you've all been had... thanks for your money!". Then they give us the single fingered salute.Well, right back at you. I didn't actually pay to see this movie... I downloaded the DVD for nothing. How d'ya like them apples? Now THAT'S a plot twist.$LABEL$ 0
+Someone says this anime could be offensive for girls... not really. Embarrassing situations are funny; first time i see this series i was in the video store, people around me started laughing, doesn't matter the age or gender. A teacher said that in order to guarantee the attention of someone in a book the beginning must be entertaining and the ending shouldn't be obvious by just reading the last page. During the first minutes in the series the boy is hit by a car, during the last moments of the series, the same car appears.. Episodes had a touching and funny ending, specially last one. I don't regret to buy these series.$LABEL$ 1
+While in Madrid I was able to see a screener copy of this film. Wow! Gallo is amazing in it. Very unusual performance he gives. Aside from Gallo's genius, the film however is a dull a film I have ever seen in my life and at times is so poorly done it borders on laughable. I am also a Val Kilmer fan so he was part of the reason I made such a grand effort to view the film. The problem is Val is really only in one scene. Having his name in the cast as the lead is an insult to my intelligence and to the rest of the cast. I have only seen Stranded of the directors other films. Both films are far far below average but both contain very interesting Vincent Gallo performances. If you are as much as a Gallo fan as I then see this film regardless of how bad it is. If you do not like Gallo then there is ZERO left to love.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't seem to find anything that is good about this miniseries. Why the hell would you ban chocolate when u could ban something far more practical like smoking or alcohol? Also the fact that its an Australian program and its all set in england and everyone is faking british accents is stupid. Overall i think that this show is Unrealistic and cheap.$LABEL$ 0
+"Fear Of A Black Hat" is everything the (much weaker) "CB-4" SHOULD have been. Rusty Cundieff's satirical eye is ruthless, as he folds, spindles, and mutilates every aspect of hip-hop trends and culture. Does "FoaBH" resemble Spinal Tap? Yes, a bit. Is it derivative of Spinal Tap? No, not really. The aim is more focused, the satire is better focused, and to be honest, it's funnier.$LABEL$ 1
+I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula$LABEL$ 0
+As of this writing John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is nearing it's 30th anniversary. It has since spawned 7 sequels, a remake, a whole mess of imitations and every year around Halloween when they do those 'Top 10 Scariest Movies' lists it's always on there. That's quite amazing for a film that was made on a budget of around $300,000 and featured a then almost completely unknown cast of up and coming young talent. I could go on and on, but the big question here is: How does the film hold up today? And all I can say to that is, fantastically! Pros: A simple, but spooky opening credits sequence that really sets the mood. An unforgettable and goosebump-inducing score by director/co-writer John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. Great cinematography. Stellar direction by Carpenter who keeps the suspense high, gets some great shots, and is careful not to show too much of his villain. Good performances from the then mostly unknown cast. A good sense of humor. Michael Myers is one scary, evil guy. A lot of eerie moments that'll stay with you. The pace is slow, but steady and never drags. Unlike most other slasher films, this one is more about suspense and terror than blood and a big body count.Cons: Probably not nearly as scary now as it was then. Many of the goofs really stand out. Final thoughts: I want to start out this section by saying this is not my favorite film in the series. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's really how I feel. Despite that it truly is an important film that keeps reaching new generations of film buffs. And just because it's been remade for a new generation doesn't mean it'll be forgotten. No way, no how.My rating: 5/5$LABEL$ 1
+Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Cliché storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name.$LABEL$ 0
+ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!$LABEL$ 0
+SPOILERSThis movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his "muscles" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe.$LABEL$ 0
+I first came across 'My Tutor Friend' accidentally one or two years ago while TV surfing. Prior to that, I'd never watched any Korean films before in my whole life, so MTF was really the first Korean film I've ever watched. And- what a delightful surprise! I was thoroughly amused from the beginning to end, and had a great time laughing. Its comic style is quite different from those of the Hong Kong comic films (which I've been to used to all my life and hence tired of as well), breathing fresh air into my humdrum film viewing experience. I thought there're quite a few scenes and tricks in MTF that are pretty hilarious, witty, and original too.I watched MTF the second time a few days ago, and having watched it once already, the surprise/comic effect on me kind of mitigated. That has, however, by no means affected negatively my opinion of the film. Instead, something else came through this time- it moved me- the story about how two young, seemingly 'enemies' who're utterly incompatible get thrown together, and how they gradually resolve their differences and start caring for each other without realizing the feelings themselves, reminds me of the long gone high school days. To me, Su Wan and Ji Hoon ARE actually compatible as they both have something that is pure and genuine inside them, a quality that separates them from people like say, Ji Hoon's sassy girlfriend.The film is divided into two distinct parts- the 1st part deals with the 'fight' between Su Wan and Ji Hoon, and is more violent and faster in pace. After Ji Hoon gets a pass in his final examination and Su Wan dances the (in Ji Hoon's opinion) provocative dance, things start to change. The pace slows down and... Ji Hoon suddenly realizes he cares for Su Wan more than he could ever imagine. So the 2nd part deals with the development of their mutual feelings, leading of course to a happy ending accompanied by a final showdown with the gang boss.Just one last comment. I find this to be a bit unbelievable- the fact that a 21-year-old self-proclaimed 'bad boy' would feel embarrassed being almost naked in front of the girl he bullies and loses his 'cool' is just a little... odd. I guess that shows that Ji Hoon is just a boy pure at heart and isn't really what his appearance seems. Btw, Kwong San Woo (Ji Hoon) DOES have a sexy body and perfect figure! ;-) MTF is definitely on my list of top 10 favorite films of all time.$LABEL$ 1
+despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them nowhonestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character developmenti was glad i watched it$LABEL$ 1
+Now days, most people don't watch classic movies, such as this. Most of friends only watch movies from the '90s to present. Thats kinda stingy. Most old movies like this are masterpieces, unique in their own way. Only because, back when these movies were being thought of and made, thats when ideas were fresh. Now people strain just to think of new ideas. Anyway, to the movie. For true fans of classic horror. This is for you. The movie is based with a investigator from Scotland Yard investigating the disappearance of an movie actor, and stumbles on to three other strange occurrences with past residents of the same house. I won't say anymore, for I will ruin the movie more than I already have. But it is a terrific movie for as old as it is. And would never mind watching it again!$LABEL$ 1
+"Edge of the City" is another movie that owes a lot of credit to "On the Waterfront". From it's NYC locations, to its score, to the belief that whatever trouble you may be in, you can somehow right your wrongs."Edge" also deals with ideas like loyalty and racism. In my opinion, that is where the movie does not succeed like "Waterfront". At 85 minutes the movie rushes through the establishment of relationships, and ties everything up so quickly that much of it seems forced and unbelievable.Possible Spoilers****The relationship between Sidney Poitier and John Cassavettes could have been further developed in the beginning. I don't believe that these two characters, from two very different places would have built such a strong relationship so quickly. I think that the whole love sub-plot with Cassavettes could have been eliminated. He is so awkward with a woman that it becomes painful to watch. The only reason why it is in the movie is so that she can motivate him to do the right thing at the end. There are other ways that they could have shown this. I would have also liked to see some scenes of Axel in the army to illustrate why he is the way he is.The acting is excellent. Poitier is terrific in a role that is beautifully written. His role as Tyler is interesting and multi-layered, and (especially for 1957), a man who is confident, respected, and intelligent. Cassavettes, as Axel North, while very good, does not seem quite right for the part. Warden is terrific as the boss who knows Axel's secret (although his fight scene with Cassavettes at the end is staged horribly. Too many break-away boxes). I thought Ruby Dee was wonderful in role of Poitier's wife.On the whole, "Edge of the City" is a smart, movie with a very good cast that tries too hard to be an interesting noir style picture, without taking the time to let the drama build.7 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...$LABEL$ 0
+I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is about basically human relations, and the interaction between them. The main character is an old lady who at the twilight of her life starts a journey to her past, doing an analysis of how she lived her life. This journey is precipitated because of the sons economic crisis and his intentions to put her in a nursing home. It is a very honest look to some issues that we all ask ourselves at some point in life, and there is plenty of secondary ideas to discuss in this movie such as family legacy, real love, marriage or destiny. although this type of movie melodramas are nothing new, this one can be useful to watch it with family members to discuss some ideas. There is a good performance by the actors and the characters are very believable, but because of the time some characters are maybe not fully developed. I really recommend this movie for a quiet Saturday afternoon.$LABEL$ 1
+I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead!$LABEL$ 1
+For Columbo fans, such as myself, this is the episode of episodes that made a case for why Columbo was so popular, and just how good it really was. Ruth Gordon has a field day (as ever) playing the wittily intelligent crime novelist Abigail Mitchell. Seems Abigail calls her nephew-in-law to sign some papers making him her heir. She never got over her niece's death, and is convinced her dead niece's husband (Charles Frank) did the dirty deed. To tell more would be unthinkable. Mariette Hartley has a sly role as Abigail's personal assistant. This episode of Columbo is in a class by itself. It's a truly well made television movie. I recommend it most highly.$LABEL$ 1
+There are no words to explain how bad NIGHTMARE WEEKEND is. It simply defies description. Something about a computer that can change personal objects into silver balls that enter the victims' mouth, which kills them or turns them into zombies. The whole thing is so wonky that it's stunning. There's also a girl with personal computer in her room and the computer talks via a hand puppet!!!!!!!! I'm not making this stuff up. The computer also controls things like cars, even though there's nothing linking the computer with the vehicle.The "film" is total trash. Surreal bad trash. Spectacularly, one-of-a-kind bad trash. There's a lot of sex scenes thrown here and there, which aren't very hot or erotic. There's even one scene where a woman seemingly makes love or wants to French kiss a tarantula, which had me rolling on the floor.Definitely one of the worst movies ever made. Up there with the equally wretched direct-to-home video BOARDINGHOUSE, or BOOGEYMAN II (both NIGHTMARE WEEKEND and BOOGEYMAN II have scenes with a killer toothbrush!). At least it's fun to watch it and try to make sense of whatever is going on.$LABEL$ 0
+I just finished this movie and my only comment is "OH! WOW!". Jennifer Beals is ok as the fiancee, but Yancy Butler as the female dance instructor is pure sexual dynamite! Having watched her in WITCHBLADE, I was not prepared for the pure unadulterated sensuality and raw sexual excitement she launches onto the screen.I gotta see THIS movie again....if only for Yancy Butler as Corrinne!$LABEL$ 1
+"L'Ossessa" (released in English under many titles and the eeriest of them certainly is "The eerie midnight horror show") is one of the best Italian rip-offs of "The Exorcist". To really appreciate this film you should have a sense of humor. "L'Ossessa" is at the same time sleazy (but naive), pathetic and sometimes even moving.Danila (Stella Carnacina), an art student, goes to an old church to see the statue she's going to restore. It's a wooden statue of Christ, a demonic Christ, maybe already overcome by evil, or fighting against it, or perhaps planning dark deeds. The face shows infinite torment. The statue dates from the 15th century. Danila is impressed by the mastery shown by the sculptor - the statue seems almost alive! She lives with her parents. Her mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) lives a dissolute life and doesn't care too much for keeping up appearances. Her father Mario (Chris Avram) observes everything with disenchanted eyes.The wooden statue will soon assume a human form (Ivan Rassimov) and possess Danila in the carnal and spiritual sense. An amazing scene! The poor Danila, from now on, will suffer the torments of hell.Danila (the lovely Stella Carnacina) was ravished, violated, possessed by the devil and now following his orders, she will try to seduce others. Ain't she emulating her sleazy mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) who feels great pleasure when her lover whips her with a bunch of roses? There is a scene so ridiculous as to be sublime and moving, when Stella Carnacina runs in despair through the narrow streets (possessed by the devil, remember?) of a small Italian town screaming her heart out. Luigi Pistilli is a very good exorcist. His performance is, as usual, intense. The exorcism scenes (particularlly the final battle) are very, very amateurish, but this will only enhance the fun (and/or emotion?) if you've really got a sense of humor.Stella Carnacina is beautiful and looks fresh and innocent, and that's a factor that adds to your pleasure when she's naked, but I think that the film could have explored more her natural beauty. Lucretia Love is a very good sleaze companion (her nude scene with the roses... well.:) Other Italian exorcist rip-offs I would like to recommend for you are: Malabimba (very sleazy and released uncut and digitally restored) "Evil Eye" (Malocchio) - "The Exorcist" was the main source of inspiration for "Evil Eye", but others films, like, for instance, "Rosemary's Baby" should also be taken into account. "Evil Eye" is completely over the top. Not that sleazy but with plenty of gorgeous Italian and Spanish actresses. You'll be drooling all over the film. The film is ridiculous, the story doesn't make any sense, but if you see it in the right mood you might feel moved! - a diabolical sect, possession, murders, despair, love, investigation and beautiful women all around. A wild ride! If you liked "Evil Eye", see also "Ring of Darkness" (Un'Ombra nell'ombra). This film can be found in the alternative market. Search this title in the IMDb. There are good reviews about it.P.S. - "L'Ossessa" has many different faces. It's exploitative, but it can also be serious and moving. It's cheap, cheesy... sleazy (but not that much) and it has an underlying "moral" message. This strange brew can sometimes be very funny. We all already know that "L'Ossessa" is an "Exorcist" rip-off so why can't we see it on its own terms? Yes, Mario Gariazzo was trying to earn a fast buck, but he was able get the most out of a shoestring budget. The story is well told, the film is atmospheric and overall the actors are committed to their roles. See the film with an open mind and you may discover two or three new things.$LABEL$ 1
+A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film. As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past. I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out.$LABEL$ 1
+is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with "bad habits" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000!$LABEL$ 1
+With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime.$LABEL$ 1
+As a helpful warning for others, I believe "Skeleton Man" is actually worse than "Raptor Island." I have been using RI as an example of the worst original movie presented on the Sci-Fi channel, but SM is the most laughably incoherent and wretchedly designed movie I have yet seen. Yes, I did watch almost the whole thing, coming into it about 35 minutes into it. It drew me in with its pure ineptitude. What was Sci-Fi thinking? Once Skeleton Man and the surviving platoon leader (or whatever he was--I'm not good on military unit terminology) reached the chemical plant, the movie moved into a zone of impossible nonsense that was almost mesmerizing. I had the same idea as another viewer who wondered if more than one movie had someone been edited together to make one terrible whole.$LABEL$ 0
+Dear Readers,I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt MacleodParental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.$LABEL$ 0
+Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.$LABEL$ 0
+- A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't "real". These scares just don't work.- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these "actors" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? - I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Considering John Doe apparently inspired Kyle XY's creator I was expecting its pilot to be quite interesting. However I probably had too high expectations because I was quite disappointed by it. First they turned the protagonist into a freak who had the crazy idea of showing off his amazing knowledge in front of an audience, in a public area. So after that scene I began to worry that it was just entertainment. But the problem is that it got worse as none of the other characters were properly introduced. They focused too much on John Doe which made the story far less intriguing. I was also slightly disappointed by Dominic Purcell's performance because I found he didn't make a believable John Doe. An other problem was the police story. It really felt like déjà vu and it wasn't a pleasant sensation. It leads us to the worst issue in the bunch, the episodic format. I could already see the fillers coming one after an other.So overall I was very disappointed by it and don't recommend it to anyone. Considering how bad it was I better understand now why the show got canceled. In some way I have the impression that it missed its target, developing characters to help the protagonist find his own identity. It's sad because there was potential, like the people he met at the club. The production quality was also quite good and the casting correct. But I'll never know if it got better, probably not, because I don't plan to watch the next episode.$LABEL$ 0
+I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone.$LABEL$ 0
+I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music.$LABEL$ 1
+The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.$LABEL$ 0
+[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]I have this adult friend for whom the notion that her parents have sex makes her terribly uneasy. She came to mind when I reflected on the audience's reaction to "The Mother." People gasped when May (Anne Reid) writhed passionately in bed with her younger hunk lover, Darren (Daniel Craig) or later saw sexually explicit drawings by May. I doubt the audience was aghast at the nudity or the drawings' content as much as feeling uneasy at seeing a woman in her 60s rapturously enjoying sex.Screenwriter Hanif Kureishi ("My Beautiful Laundrette," "My Son the Fanatic") again proves why he's among the most trenchant storytellers on either side of the Atlantic. His story's not easy to take. This searing family drama isn't a film you can claim you enjoyed watching because it's raw, complex, and often makes us very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it's powerfully good stuff.Kureishi and Roger Michell (who directed "Notting Hill," of all things) craft an unsentimental, wrenching and superbly-acted portrait of an older woman who realizes, after all these years, she can and should still enjoy all of life's pleasures. In a wonderfully epiphanous moment, when her son, Bobby, asks her not to be difficult, May shoots back, "Why not?"Why not, indeed.Anne Reid deserves an Oscar nomination for her turn as May. It's subtle, restrained, powerful and sad, often all at the same time. Watch Reid when May observes Darren and Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) in a seemingly passionate clutch in a pub. Or, when she begs Paula to open the front door after a disastrous date. Reid's eyes and face reveal all of May's anguish and despair. In the film's most devastating moment, May drops to her knees before Darren, willing to do anything for him, only asking him to be kind. This is a tremendously gutsy performance by a remarkable actress.I enjoyed Michell's use of natural sound, especially when May and Toots first arrive at Bobby's place. It perfectly illustrated the cacophony around May and Toots, the flippant manner in which their own family welcomes them.This film, at times, reminded me of the honesty and rawness of Mike Leigh's work, except "The Mother" hangs on to a slight sense of optimism to keep afloat.My one quibble: Michell's decision to give May and Darren's first love scene an almost cheesy sensibility. The lovers remain out of focus while, in the foreground, a white curtain flutters gently in the breeze. And the only sound is of May in the throes of passion.The problem with Michell's approach is that both Reid and Craig, who completely envelops the role of Darren, plough their way so fearlessly into these roles that it's unfair to hide their characters' almost primitive energy from the audience. Especially since Michell has no qualms about making later sex scenes visceral.This film doesn't have immensely likable characters. We sympathize with May, but she, too, causes her daughter's suffering. But I doubt Kureishi intended to people his story with likable folk. His point, I believe, was to unmask a family that's already cracking when something emotionally cataclysmic happens. It's unflinching in its candor and ultimately unforgettable.$LABEL$ 1
+OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however.$LABEL$ 1
+this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending.$LABEL$ 1
+When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn.$LABEL$ 1
+What a delightful romp – a very competently made film that has so much charm and a feelgood factor that a lot of romantic comedies lack. Einstein is brilliantly acted by Walter Matthau, while Meg Ryan's Catherine is unforgettable – better than I have seen her in those films opposite Tom Hanks – as the young mathematician struggling to be recognized.You don't need to be a young woman to understand Catherine's struggle and feel sympathetic for her immediately, and as a young man it's easy to understand what must have gone through Ed's (Tim Robbins) mind in pursuing his true love. There's universal appeal in these emotions, even if I.Q. keeps it all light, fun and tied up nicely.Sure it's not heavy, but if you look there are some subtexts. People remember Albert Einstein as a scientist yet he was a great spiritualist; his sayings such as something along the lines of, 'If it is not impossible, then why do it?' suggest he is a believer in fulfilling higher goals beyond one's immediate grasp. In this film, there are questions of what an accident really is – such as whether Albert and his whacky sidekicks' intervention in prying Catherine away from stiff-upper-lip, loveless James (Stephen Fry – who gives this otherwise cardboard character life and you cannot help but feel for his lack of feeling) counts. How much intervention happens in our lives that we do not see, and comes across as serendipitous?And of course, we'd like to think in real life, despite what we often observe of the people we know, that we Edwards get the Catherines and Jameses have to learn how to defrost the icewater in their veins. How nice to know that it might work out in I.Q.'s innocent (and disturbingly, exclusively Caucasian) Eisenhower-era land of make-believe.$LABEL$ 1
+With this movie, it's all about style, atmosphere, and acting. True, I didn't believe all of the plot developments, but it didn't matter- the terrific acting, the unexpected plot twists, and the wonderful atmosphere sucked me right in, and carried me along for the ride, and I had a great time. Kenneth Branagh is not only a great actor but a master of accents, and he proves it once again with a flawless Georgia accent. He's surrounded by so much talent in supporting roles (Robert Downey, Jr., Embeth Davidtz from Schindler's List and Fallen, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, and Robert Duvall) that I was simply blown away. I recently bought a copy of this movie, and I never tire of watching it. Simply one of the best thrillers of the year. If you've ignored this movie (and chances are you have), then I suggest you check it out.$LABEL$ 1
+Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow … Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.$LABEL$ 0
+While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it!$LABEL$ 0
+Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't care what anyone says, this movie was crap. The only thing it had going for it was camera work which was very well done. As for the dialogue I have heard so many people talk about...it sucked too. Yes it was honest and true to life, but so what, I can hear anyone talk like that on the street, or in a fast food joint. What made the dialogue good in movies like Pulp Fiction, and Gosford Park was the fact that it is WRITTEN dialogue, that takes time to think through. Another thing was that the director should not have put himself in the picture. I believe that the male character could have been a lot stronger, but instead it seemed weak. In fact the movie seemed to revolve around the male character, and then he completely disappears in the last twenty minutes. The girl in the film I found completely repulsive, not in appearance, but in her needy needy ways. Saying she is in love with a guy, and actually getting jealous of him the next day, what a crock of crap. Final thing: the sound was terrible, and I hope it was only something that plagued my theater instead of actually being on the final cut of the film. There was a constant buzzing sound during several scenes and it was actually taking away from the talking going on. The one good thing again was Blood's job as the DP, but the actress that played the main guy's ex girlfriend did a very good job as well. These two things couldn't save an ultimately terrible movie, which I refuse to call a film. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Back in 74 Eric Monte made the classic T.V show Good Times. JJ has always been my favorite and I love watching the Reruns on T.V Land. Jimmie Walker always seemed to be the star and not Esther Rolle. John Amos most of the time felt a little jealous of Jimmie Walker's popularity winning millions of fans time to sit and watch Good Times. The show would have been dead if JJ would't have been there to save it with his always Kool Aid attitude. Drinking KOOL AID was like his favorite thing on the show. I was 3 when it came out and 8 when it ended. Instead of 1974-1979 it should have went longer like in the 1980's when I was just growing up.$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or "preachy" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, "matter-of-fact" way. I hope to show it to my daughter.$LABEL$ 1
+I like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks…). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen – it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense.$LABEL$ 0
+As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)$LABEL$ 0
+This is a remake of the anime classic from the 80's, and this one is even better. Sylia, Nene, Linna, and Priss are all back as the Knight Sabers in their hard-suits battling the robotic boomers. The animation is crisp, the characters are well-developed, and the action rocks. Priss is a singer in her regular job, so the series features some wonderful songs as well. There is a fair amount of violence, but most of it is against robots, and there is some fan service, but nothing too racy. The DVDs also have many extras, including commentaries, which really enhance your understanding and enjoyment of the show. A must-have for any anime fan.Also recommended: Burst Angel, Armitage III$LABEL$ 1
+Being quite a fan of Charlie Chaplin following good vibes after seeing first 'The Gold Rush' and then 'City Lights', I was eager to see 'The Great Dictator' as I had been told this was, arguably, his best film. I was also intrigued at the fact it was a talkie; my first one, Chaplin-wise.The start is typical Chaplin and blatant proof that when it comes to sound, Chaplain can cut it whilst not solely relying on music to set mood and to do the talking; it's funny, well timed and the elements of slapstick such as falling off an anti-aircraft gun are well tied in with the jokes. It was good to draw the viewer in with this 'classic Chaplin' opening and at the same time, kick start the narrative of characters getting to know one another. What was also well done was the way in which Hitler is spoofed. Any scene involving Hitler or 'Hynkel' in this film, was funny and even now; makes you think back as you know exactly who he's spoofing and does create an internal reaction of some kind. The way in which English in mixed in with the mock German during the dialogue scenes is further proof of the way Chaplin managed to adapt to the talkie era. My favourite joke was the five minute speech Hynkel gave, only for the English translator to translate it into a mere few words; making you think back to footage of Hitler you may have seen giving a speech at some point in your life and, indeed, laugh at him.Historically, the film got a few things right as well. Hynkel is seen getting his photograph taken with children; something Hitler did for recognition as he manipulated the media but here, Hynkel is seen to yawn and act bored; stabbing at Hitler's underhand technique of winning over the German public through sympathy (Oh, he hugs and kisses children. He must be OK!). The film is also given a fantastic premise of a Jewish civilian reinstalled into the ghetto amongst all the travesties going on but with the catch that he is oblivious. Films such as 'The Pianist' and 'Come and See' are two good examples of Nazi cruelty towards 'inferior' people which nowadays, we can all look back on and shake our heads at whereas back in the late 1930's when this was filmed, the fact he had the cruelty going on and was exploiting it makes it even more an astounding achievement. Chaplin has managed to replace guns and truncheons for tomatoes and saucepans and still pulls it off.What I didn't like about the film, however, was the fact it settled into an actual narrative after the opening. This slowed the film up and this is very noticeable as the foot was taken off the gas somewhat. The film started to hint at stories and sub-stories. These included the barber and the female neighbour falling in love and the supposed destruction of Hynkel's palace whereas none of these were actually developed. The 'giving a woman a shave' and the 'whoever has the coin in their pudding does the deed' gags were hinting at these plot paths but in the end, just materialised into nothing but excuses for drawn out, unfunny gags which was disappointing.During the final straight, The Great Dictator gets a boost from the fact the Italian dictator is introduced who adds some much needed life and excuse for comedy to the film. It works a treat as we see them argue and more underhand tactics are exploited when Hynkel attempts to 'overpower' his Italian counterpart through a series of dirty tricks (although, they are humorously foiled). Despite a few weaknesses in pacing during the middle segment and the fact I felt the message at the end was a little forced down my throat, The Great Dictator holds up for viewing today but that's only because he took the gamble of exploiting things nobody else really knew were there.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.$LABEL$ 0
+I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are.$LABEL$ 1
+A nicely paced romantic war story that should have got more exposure. The Czech pilot who played piano gives a mellow touch to the story. The flying footage may not have been enough for aviation buffs like myself, but then again, this really isn't an action movie. Though it does not have anything in common with the James Salter novel "The Hunters" that became the movie about Korean War F86 Sabre pilots, Dark Blue World had a similar feel but with more of a romantic element to it. Better in some ways than Battle of Britain in that it doesn't rely on big name actors. Suggest viewing this movie with some Czech beer and some Czech dumplings called kneldniky(sp).$LABEL$ 1
+From the opening drum hit of "We're Gonna Groove" to the last guitar hit of "Whole Lotta Love", this two-DVD set might be one of the best music DVD's ever to hit the shelves since the Beatles Anthology was finally released earlier this year.One of the best things about this DVD is that on Disc 1, a whole concert and many television appearances can be found. For instance, the whole Royal Albert Hall concert is on the DVD, as well as some of the best performances from the band's last concert at Knebworth.In the Royal Albert Hall concert, for instance, the band had a lot of room to improvise. Jimmy Page's guitar solos make "Dazed And Confused" a huge rock power ballad as opposed to the laid-back blues song it was on Led Zeppelin I. Next, on DVD 2, is a promotional video for the Led Zeppelin III hit song "Immigrant Song". One of Zeppelin's hardest rocking songs, the video is about as sketchy as a Pre-MTV video was, but it displays a lot of guitar power by Jimmy Page, as it was taken from a live performance. After the video ends, we are treated, in transition, with a short picture of fans filling the seats at Madison Square Garden. The following are performances that were supposed to be part of "The Song Remains The Same", but did not make the cut. Excellent riffs like those in the songs "Black Dog" and "The Ocean" were both present.After the Madison Performances, we are treated with Earl's Court. Most of the Led Zeppelin IV material was played here, like the most popular song that Zeppelin ever recorded, "Stairway to Heaven". It is brilliant as always, even more so than the version on IV.Finally, to end the 5+ hours of live material, is Led Zeppelin's final concert in Knebworth in August of 1979. As the viewer watches this, they have to admit that Robert Plant's voice is getting throatier and deeper from all of the screaming he has done in the past, and it is evident here. On songs like "Kashmir" and "In The Evening", Plant does not have his vocal boost of old, yet, on "Whole Lotta Love", it returns for one more song.Overall, one of the best musical DVD's ever released, only next to the great "Beatles Anthology" boxed set that was released earlier in 2003. The sound, both in 5.1 DTS and 5.1 Dolby Digital, just like the Beatles DVD, gives you a feeling of being on-stage with the performers, standing right next to them, as you would feel on the Beatles DVD when they are jamming in the studio. Even though The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are different bands, though, they each received different DVD's. Even though this set comes on only two discs compared to the five disc Beatles Set, it still feels very filling to the viewer after they have gone through all of that content. It is also a pleasure to watch again and again, not only because of the sound quality, but because of the sheer energy on stage when Robert Plant begins to sing.A brilliant effort from Atlantic.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a great movie. It had one "sot-so-nice" outburst. Plus there were some very intense (drama) scenes which might make it inappropriate for younger viewers, under 6.For a under the radar film, the acting was quite enjoyable, and touched down in our family room for a near perfect landing. It held the attention of our whole family and we were kind of sorry to see it end.This movie had elements of spy kids with young people saving the day, but was given a somewhat more believable scenario. The dream scenes were a distraction at first, but did a great deal to establish the plot. The pranks and hi-jinx were also quite amusing.We hope you like as much as we did.$LABEL$ 1
+"It all depends on how you look at it –we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past —in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goer—the most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the film—if you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spirit—and therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.The final layer is the social commentary—"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I have passed several times on watching this since I figured it was some dumb, sappy, dated romantic comedy. Well, it is a romantic comedy, and maybe a little dated. However, it is not overly sentimental, touching as it does on themes of office politics, adultery, and loneliness. You think you know exactly where things are headed, but there is an element of unpredictability that keeps your interest, and not everything turns out quite as you had expected. But, there is enough wit and charm to touch the most inveterate cynic. If you meet someone who doesn't like this movie, seriously consider how well you want to know them.$LABEL$ 1
+I was very disappointed in this film. The director has shown some talent in his other endeavors, but this just seemed to be filler. There may have been a deep meaning behind it, but it seems to me to be nothing but a director who has access to some toys.I would highly recommend his other works to people, but certainly not this one. As I watched it, I kept on thinking it would pick up after an initial slow period, but it never did. At the end of the movie I was neither entertained nor moved nor thought of things in a new way. I could only say to myself, "What was that?"There were a few really striking parts of the film, but not enough to warrant sitting through it again.$LABEL$ 0
+THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film$LABEL$ 0
+Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse.$LABEL$ 0
+Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1$LABEL$ 0
+This tough-to-see little picture played at the Mods & Rockers 2007 festival. It is a wonderful and loving look at Harry Nilsson, using many famous faces who sit for interviews, rarely seen TV performances and behind-the-scenes footage of Nilsson at work. There's even a few shots from "Son Of Dracula". This movie is the final and fitting tribute to one of the finest voices, the most clever songwriter and the funniest man in popular music. It's a crime that this man's name is not as well known as some of the songs he wrote and/or performed. His friends tell incredibly funny stories about this talented hulk with a subconscious wish for self-destruction. As a bonus, you even get Eric Idle performing the song with wrote for Nilsson's final album during the closing credits. It's funny, it's sad. It's not in general release. If this picture plays anywhere near where you live, see it!$LABEL$ 1
+Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937.$LABEL$ 1
+No Strings Attached features Carlos Mencia doing stand-up that makes us both laugh and think. Not only does he poke fun at racial issues (like many haters claim), but he also talks about the best way to get illegal immigrants out of the country...what women mean when they say they want to be treated equally...why Americans are crazier than Arab terrorists...why nobody needs to pray for the pope - and what he hopes he's doing in heaven...a theory of how Easter (aka Big Ups to Jesus Day) traditions got started...his viewing of the movie Passion of the Christ - and his sub-sequential argument with a woman about whether or not he's affected by Jesus...how society should treat the physically handicapped...and even if you have the right to tell a joke or not.Also, he never stops reminding us that each of us has a voice. So we should use it to speak the truth, say what we think, and not be afraid if others are offended.Carlos is the bomb.$LABEL$ 1
+This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.!$LABEL$ 0
+Wow. I felt like I needed to shower off after watching this one, but maybe there were other reasons that I will leave to your imagination. I felt used and abused after wacking, I mean watching this film. Hairy chests, thick mustaches, and well, hairy everything describes this porn/horror movie, but hey, it was 1981, you can't call it "porn" in the 70s and 80s without the hair.As a horror flick, this bites. But as a piece of exploitation/porn from Italy's rich cinematic history- it definitely has a place in my library. The copy I have is in Italian with English subtitles. I wish it had the really poorly dubbed English, I think it would have added to the sleaziness factor that already existed. The only white guy who gets laid in the movie is "Mark Shannon"- he is the moustache wearing, hairy chested piece of machismo who really does try and give a performance every time he "steps up to bat". This was at the end of an era where porn producers were actually trying to make something artistic. Nothing like panning the camera from a tropical backdrop to a hairy man having "doggie-style" sex with a woman. I can't help but laugh.This is one of those movies that I pray my future wife and kids never find.$LABEL$ 0
+Well how can I categorise Farscape without resorting to gushing superlatives? Ok, here goes! The scripts are fantastic, with each episode offering so much entertainment, drama, humour and sheer watchability. The casting is perfect especially that of Zhaan (the blue lady) played by Virginia Hey, each character has a depth that just isn't there on the Star Trek series.I think having an Australian spin on the show makes this for me, Australia has been knocking out quality films for years and Farscape is no exception.I have only seen the first four episodes in UK order and they have a quality that makes each 45 minute show (in the UK) stand out more like a film than a weekly TV series.The episode that really does it for me is 'I, ET' which turns the alien concept around where Moya (a living ship, even the spacecraft has a great character) is forced to land on a planet that has yet to make 'First contact' and is surprisingly earth like and Crichton meets a radio telescope operator and *he* is the 'little green man' to them. Gripping stuff.In short the effects are great, the scripts are top quality and the main characters (not one of them really given any more importance than any other) are interesting, not always 'good' and well just excellent.Roll on the second season!$LABEL$ 1
+In conception a splendid film, investigating the tensions that occur in family life in the idyllic setting of Galiano Island off the coast of British Columbia, _The Lotus Eaters_ is marred by the fact that it has been packaged as a made-for-TV movie, diminishing itself throughout by the addition of chirpy music over potentially powerful scenes, as if to get ready for the interruption of commercials. A pity, really.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons. Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant.$LABEL$ 1
+I wish "that '70s show" would come back on television. It was the greatest show ever!!! They should make episodes between the other episodes but of course that would be confusing. But I wish it would come back and make more episodes. Please come back... The show was absolutely hilarious. You couldn't laugh without seeing an episode. There is a really funny part in every episode and plus the show was so much better when Hyde and Jackie were going out with each other. Those were the best episodes. "That '70s show is the best".... It will be and always will be the best show ever. It was really sad when the show ended. They should make new episodes.$LABEL$ 1
+Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East. People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was supposed to release in 2002 and was much awaited due to the promos but it finally released in 2003 after the producer diedThe movie is good in parts but overall isn't greatThe scenes between Rani and Ajay are okay but the other scenes are not well handledThe film is too similar to BOLLYWOOD Hollywood and though this was planned before that got released first so originality is lostMilan Luthria disappoints overall after KACHCHE DAAGEMusic is good but too many songsAjay Devgan looks jaded and his appearance gives away that the film was delayed and his acting looks boring too Rani is good Sonali is good too rest are okay$LABEL$ 0
+I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.That's about it...$LABEL$ 0
+This is the most depressing film I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and even thinking about it now really upsets me. I know it was set in a time when life was hard and I know these people were poor and the crops were vital. Yes, I get all that. What I find hard to take is I can't remember one single light moment in the entire film. Maybe it was true to life, I don't know. I'm quite sure the acting was top notch and the direction and quality of filming etc etc was wonderful and I know that every film can't have a happy ending but as a family film it is dire in my opinion.I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained by a film. I can't stress enough how this film affected me as a child. I was talking about it recently and all the sad memories came flooding back. I think it would have all but the heartless reaching for the Prozac.$LABEL$ 0
+These things have been floating around in my head for damn near 10 years now. Some pieces of this work were really memorable. - Id love to see another more current example of cg showy offy stuff. Actually I'd love to be part of it.If I'd would of had the chance to just say what i wanted and thats it, I wouldn't have to write all this extra in order to make "10 lines if text" as this website requires. I mean really? This almost discourages me, I mean luckily for the guys that made the movie I really liked the Minds Eye - and it took me 3 times to have enough lines, I hope you don't get me on the misspelling. - yup you did.$LABEL$ 1
+If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something.$LABEL$ 0
+Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched "Gristle" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the "F" word.It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful "Bamboozled" looks good in comparison.This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really "finished." I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since.$LABEL$ 0
+I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still have a good laugh.In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the girl pretends that her father is her lover.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model/actress from Korea who plays "Muka Laka Miki" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie. She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.So don't say I didn't warn you...$LABEL$ 0
+Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. "Listen," their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown.$LABEL$ 1
+#3 in young John Travolta's trilogy of blockbusters. He dances to disco, rock 'n' roll and country. He heads to Houston to find work and love. Gilley's is the hot spot, and it is the time of the mechanical bull. Not to be outdone, I rode the bull at a club in Nashville. I recently saw this nearly forgotten film on television and remembered how good it was and how good a year 1980 was. I wore a black cowboy hat that year just like Travolta. Debra Winger was in her prime. She looks stunning in her red top. There is plenty of charisma. Bud and Sissy seem the ideal couple even if they are trailer trash. They split up just because it feels so good getting back together. Urban Cowboy has an amazing soundtrack. We get to hear Lyin' Eyes by The Eagles and Lookin' For Love by Johnny Lee.$LABEL$ 1
+This was the film that first indicated to me what a great actor Martin Sheen really is. He modestly claims that Charlie is a better actor, Charlie can't hold a candle to him.I found it suspenseful and thoroughly enjoyed the intertwining of the love story with the main plot (and I usually HATE love stories). There's a great plot twist at the end that struck me as being fully credible, particularly in the early 80's time period, and probably now also.The final scene had me on the edge of my seat. This film roundly illustrates that treachery is often doled out by those we trust, while declared enemies have more in common than they suspect, and finally, that human compassion can be found where we least expect it.irenerose$LABEL$ 1
+This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.$LABEL$ 0
+Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me.$LABEL$ 0
+Quick and simple, I love this movie.As some others have mentioned, I also, am not from the south, don't really care for country music and have never worn a cowboy hat. (I've never drove around in a car with a dead body in my trunk either, but I love "Goodfellas.") This is just great film making. Shot in a 2.35 aspect ratio and beautifully transfered to DVD. (The VHS was 1.33 full screen). And yes, a solid 5.1 mix for your viewing pleasure. What can you say about this movie?It's just a great love/hate story set in Texas, with great performances. Travolta is fantastic. Next to "Pulp Fiction", it's the best thing he's done. It's been in my top 5 for 25 years!!Check this one out!!! It's a 10 !!!!$LABEL$ 1
+A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.$LABEL$ 0
+Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.$LABEL$ 0
+So, you wanna be a rock star? See this movie. You don't like rock, you say? Or you're REALLY into heavy metal? Then put on your favorite album and dream yourself away, this movie has nothing to offer. Rarely have I ever seen a movie being able to portrait the dream of being in a rock band as good as this. I had long hair during the late 1980's and early nineties, and I have played guitar for the last 15 years or so. Did I like Rock Star? Oh yes. The music is good, not great, the actors are good, and believable, even Jennifer Aniston plays her part to perfection. And Mark Wahlberg is perfect as the wannabe rock singer. So you know what you're going to get. A movie about dreams coming true, being stepped on, and finally figuring out what life is really about. It's a good solid seven out of ten, no more, no less.$LABEL$ 1
+The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roué). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks.$LABEL$ 0
+i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the "elvis moves" down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.)$LABEL$ 0
+The main premise for this movie is every woman's fantasy: a vagina that kills and eats men. Well at least it is a fantasy for every woman who has ever had a fight against a man. What's that, 99.9999% of women? But don't worry it's not a gory kind of eating of men. It's more like a comical slurping them in, like a drain plug. There's no blood or parts left behind. So for blood, guts & gore fans, forget about this film, not much gore here.The two main characters of the film are somewhat unrealistic. Helen is a good girl who becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Dennis is a nice guy who stalks Helen.The story is already a little silly at this point, but then they throw in two more equally silly sub-stories that just send this movie into the bad B-movie territory. The first new sub-story is about Dennis finding new love with a pair of conjoined twins; and then eventually murdering one of them, and becoming a fugitive bank-robber. The second new sub-story is about Helen finding new love with a nice policeman who rescued her from a prostitution-related bad date, and decided he wanted to marry her. Dennis and Helen eventually meet up again at the end of movie in totally unbelievable circumstances, and magically Helen's murderous vagina is cured!$LABEL$ 0
+This film broke a lot of ground and receives on the whole a lot less credit than it's due. It touches on a topic that is ever-present in our daily lives, but which is seen as a phenomenon so common that it does not merit discussion. This phenomenon is that of caregivers (be they doctors or, as in "Broken Promise", a senior social worker) who abuse their position in order to harm those they have been charged to protect.In Broken Promise, Patty Clawson and her family are abandoned by their parents; but are soon picked up by local law enforcement. Faced with the certain prospect of foster care, Patty begs a young social worker to keep her and her brothers and sisters together. This social worker approaches a senior member of another department, but his request is denied.The children are parcelled off to seperate homes, thereby following the prevailing opinions of the day and ensuring a "clean break." But it is this event, the "broken promise" which gives the film it's name, which causes the dramatic tension that is to continue throughout the film. Angered by the Young Social Worker's apparent betrayal, Patty Clawson runs away from the foster home she has been sent to.Faced with the daunting task of finding her family in a climate where the ideal is seen to be a complete separation from the past; she does the only the thing she can to ascertain their whereabouts and breaks into the Senior Social Worker's office to steal the casefile.Apprehended soon after she finds she has made a dangerous enemy. Furious at the embarrassment this little girl has caused him and his department, the Senior Social Worker decides to use his power and authority to destroy her; something that legally he is quite capable of doing.---------------This topic, of the harm of caregivers to clients, is relatively taboo. It certainly has been touched on very little in films as few directors wish to tread the path that would imply that caregivers cause harm.I think that this film plays a very important role in making the public more aware of this sort of thing. The case portrayed is not only plausible, but has probably happened many times before to many other children all over the world. This film is critical to changing public opinion in order to get rid of the laws that protect harmful people like the Senior Social Worker in "Broken Promise".I strongly recommend Broken Promise. It is especially appropriate viewing for trainee social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and other caregiving professions. It is a lesson in avoidance that should be taken to heart.-----------In terms of the acting in "Broken Promise." Melissa Michaelsen plays a superb part as Patty Clawson. Especially in films such as this believability is critical. If the viewer did not identify with the character of Patty, the whole message of the film would be in jeopardy. It's unfortunate that Melissa doesn't still act in films today, as her performance in "Broken Promise" shows her to have had exceptional talent.$LABEL$ 1
+I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face$LABEL$ 0
+I found this to be a so-so romance/drama that has a nice ending and a generally nice feel to it. It's not a Hallmark Hall Of Fame-type family film with sleeping-before-marriage considered "normal" behavior but considering it stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro, I would have expected a lot rougher movie, at least language-wise. The most memorable part of the film is the portrayal of how difficult it must be to learn how to read and write when you are already an adult. That's the big theme of the movie and it involves some touching scenes but, to be honest, the film isn't that memorable.It's still a fairly mild, nice tale that I would be happy to recommend.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular. Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore "Thelma & Louise"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing. As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the "serious" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase "a shot in the ass"! 3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe$LABEL$ 0
+I searched for this movie for years, apparently it ain't available here in the States so bought me a copy off Ebay.Four young hunters and three of their girlfriends venture into the woods searching for a bear that apparently has killed several campers. What they find is an ex-Vietnam vet gone crazy (he kills some of his victims using a glove with long metal finger nails a la Freddy Krueger). As soon as the night falls, one of the girls goes for a walk after a brief argument with her boyfriend, she gets killed. After one of the group finds her body, they all hide in their tents waiting for daylight. Once the sun comes up, all of them try and make it out, but fall victim one by one.Seven bodies, not a lot of gore, but a couple of good murders, especially the girls'deaths. The guys get killed in somewhat bloodless ways (blown up in car, shot to death, knife through head). Overall, INFERNAL TRAP is a nice slasher film from the late 80's. Nothing new, just well acted, fast paced and some pretty ladies. 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.) This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *$LABEL$ 0
+Just before dawn is an underrated horror film from the early eighties. I haven't seen it in years but it had a great impact when I watched it, quite original for its day, the only problem is that it has not been released on video or dvd for years. If you like horror I urge you to check this little gem out!!$LABEL$ 1
+Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.$LABEL$ 0
+I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel.$LABEL$ 1
+Laputa: castle in the sky is the bomb. The message is as strong as his newer works and more pure, fantastic and flying pirates how could it be any better! The art is totally amazing and the soundtrack, which is reused many times after this, (im not sure if this was the first time i heard it) and evokes in me the most emotional sentimental response of any movie soundtrack. Sheeta, the female lead in this movie is totally awesome and the boy, Pazu is also a great role-model--he lives on his own! The plot is classic Miyazaki. I won't give it away, but the end is really great. I rank this as one of Miyazaki's three best with Nausicaa and Spirited Away. Also you may want to check out Howl's Moving Castle when it comes out (sometime next year i hope) If you like Miyazaki check this one out as it readily available in the USA. Enjoy, Piper A$LABEL$ 1
+After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+It is a wonderful film about people. Strange people. The characters in the movie all have a very tragic past, so they all have their problems. Their problems evolve in a way that makes the plot of the movie very absurd; but that does not make the movie worse, only better, for it is shot in a kind of fantasy-like way, so nothing is real. This review might sound a little weird, but then again, the movie is not quite normal... It is also a hilarious movie at many times. If you have not seen it, see it. Enjoy!$LABEL$ 1
+It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Although it's most certainly politically incorrect to be entertained by a drunk, there's such a charm to Dudley Moore's portrayal of lovable lush, Arthur Bach one can't help but feel for this unique and wonderful character. How can you not be entertained by that infectious laugh and giggle and utter silliness. Although I'm not really a Liza Minnelli fan, she was really excellent as Linda Marolla and I couldn't picture anyone else in that role. Sir John Gielgud was the heart of the film and deserved his Oscar. The rest of the cast also excellent and that great tune "Arthur's Theme", wow. Truly this was one of the Best Comedies of the 1980s. Great films get better with each viewing and that is the case with "Arthur."$LABEL$ 1
+I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season.$LABEL$ 0
+Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next.$LABEL$ 1
+After watching this movie on DVD, I watched the trailer. The voice-over describes the movie as surreal. Well, there's surreal, and there's surreal. There was really only one part of the film that seemed surreal to me, but frankly, it was more confusing than surreal. The other unusual imagery, particularly the lunchroom scene where everybody is on the floor, were so nonsensical they had no meaning. I don't mind imagery that doesn't mean anything, but these scenes just seemed irrelevant.My impression is that the director was trying to convey Logan's inner monologue. I don't know what else would explain what was going on. Unfortunately, nothing I saw gave me any clue what Logan was thinking about, what his perspective was, or even his emotional state. All I could tell was that he wasn't particularly happy with his physical appearance, and that he had a crush on an older boy. I thought the ending signaled what the relationship between the boys had become, but not much else did. Purposely juxtaposing ambiguous scenes with those that were more straightforward seemed more like a cop out than an artistic decision. Still, as tiresome and as content-free the movie was for me, it was a definite change of pace. I very much liked Madagascar Skin, and I had the feeling this movie aspired to that kind of narrative, and perhaps even style. It didn't even come close. For me there's no question about it: this movie deserves an A for effort, but a D for execution.$LABEL$ 0
+Murder Over New York is one of the better Chan mysteries and I've just seen this for the first time.In this one, Charlie Chan is visiting New York to attend a police convention. At the same time, people who are involved with aircraft plants are being murdered and he decides to help with the investigation, along with his Number 2 son. These murders turn out to be the results of sabotage at the aircraft plants and Chan helps to identify the murderer...Charlie Chan is played well by Sidney Toler and the rest of the cast includes Sen Yung as his Number 2 son and Marjorie Weaver.I rather liked this mystery and is worth having if you like this sort of thing.Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic.$LABEL$ 1
+To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch "My Darling Clementine" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting. In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.$LABEL$ 0
+Somewhere, out there, there must be a list of the all time worst gay films every made. One's that have overlong camera shots of the stars sitting and staring pensively into space, or one's where they focus unbearably long on kitty kats eating spaghetti. This motion sickness picture is a story of a boy and a boy and they live and love and swim and get stuck in grottos and one of them has a depressed mother and another has no mother and they talk and walk and swim and have sex and get drunk and then break up and someone goes to the hospital for eight days and then gets out and there is a lot of fast forward and rewind and there are long pensive shots of one of them looking into space or just sitting and doing nothing. I think it's some sort of gimmicky film making technique or maybe it's that the film is so bad they have to fill it up with long, wasted shots because otherwise if they had to rely on plot or story the film would be about 14 minutes. Don't get me wrong, this is about the 30th gay film I"ve watched in the past 6 months and some of them (most of them) have been very formulmatic, predictable and boring but this is one is really a terrible waste of time. The best one so far was "Beautiful Thing". So, I watched this and after the very first opening shot which lingered and lingered I thought "Oh, no, its going to be creative sinny mah" But I gave it a chance and watched it and then when it ended I tossed the DVD in the trash. Sorry I didn't like it and if you did, sorry if I offend.$LABEL$ 0
+Eskimo is a serious movie about the cultural chasm between an indigenous population and the encroaching white man. Although filmed in a documentary style seemingly with non-professionals, Eskimo is a skilled production that contains a believable story the audience will want to see through to the final shot.The native Eskimo simply has different beliefs and behaviors about women and life than do the whalers that darken his landscape. When an Eskimo man loses his mate, it is natural that other men share their women with their friend. It is also usual for their women to want to take the place of the missing spouse. All of this seems natural in the context of the desolate foreboding Arctic setting. The trusting Eskimo falls prey to unscrupulous white whalers (with heavy European accents) that do not view these natives as their equals. Deceit, drunken orgies, rape, and death occur after the Eskimo men depart for work on the icy cold seas. Eventually the lead Eskimo (Mala) realizes that he has been duped and he takes his revenge. The audience would have cheered in the 1930's theaters.Enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the moral dilemma of whether to bring back Mala for trial. The Mounties are played as feeling policemen that know this is not a cut and dry case. Will the Mounties get their man? Is it fair to hold Mala to a code of behavior outside of his traditional society? Is there a way out that does not punish Mala? Is it inevitable that the white man's law must prevail? Is there no hope for innocence?This is not a great movie, but one that you will enjoy for the depth of the issue addressed in a very different setting. I suspect that the filming of the sequences with animals was done before today's disclaimer that none were injured in the making of the film -- so beware of the raw nature sequences. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+PERHAPS SPOILER !! well, i ve seen it at the film festival in cologne and i have to say it s ridiculous ... sorry author and writer and ...whatever but it is the worst try making a good movie i ve ever seen ... if u ve got 5000 times the possibility to get away from your enemy and u don't do it .... its getting boring ... there are szenes in the movie witch gives u the impression that they are forgotten e.g. a szene in front of a security cam, they are asking for help and a somebody sees it and calles the police ... than there is a cut and .... NOTHING ??!!! ... the killer gets a shot in his head and 50 secs later he is behaving like nothing happened ... no its no zombie movie ... and finally the final ... the BIG END which we were promised .... hmmmm, lets say take a little guy who always wanted to give the world one of the best endings in history so badly that everything goes wrong .... im not going to vote "1" because the actress is beautiful ... ;)$LABEL$ 0
+I couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream "SHUT UP ALREADY!!!" What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, "Huh?"$LABEL$ 0
+A sequel to Angels With Dirty Faces in name only, The Angels Wash Their Faces suffers somewhat from the usual shenanigans of the Dead End Kids. As a matter of fact, with the presence of the Dead End Kids and Ann Sheridan this should have been treated as an actual sequel to Angels With Dirty Faces, at least for continuity's sake.Speaking of Ann Sheridan, she is the one true shining light of this movie. To paraphrase a cliché, Ann Sheridan could read from a phone book for two hours and I would buy the DVD!Another virtue of this movie is the chemistry between Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately , this aspect of the film is kept too far in the background. For a better example of the Sheridan-Reagan duo I would recommend Juke Girl or Kings Row.$LABEL$ 1
+Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.MISS AT ALL COSTS$LABEL$ 0
+- A group of bandits rob a train of the gold shipment it is carrying. In their escape, the bandits split up. The one thief who knows where the gold is hidden is killed before he is able to talk. Three men have a different part of the "clue" that will lead to the gold. Can the banker, the bandit, and the bounty hunter work together to locate the missing loot? Or, will they kill each other first? - The plot is an obvious take-off of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Various scenes in the movie are also lifted from other films by Leone, Corbucci, and more. But, to me, it's done in a way that doesn't show disrespect to the original work. Instead, Any Gun Can Play lovingly parodies some of the biggest films in Spaghetti Western history. The opening scene of three men riding into town and the final face-off between the three main stars are a wonderful homage to the SWs that came before.- Castellari adds a lot of nice touches of his own - the reflection in the spilled wine, the Stranger's entrance with the vivid red background, and the playful way the gold is discovered in the end. Although highly unbelievable, many of the fight scenes are well staged and directed. Two fight scenes in particular (the market fight and the bath house fight) are very nicely done. He is also unafraid to try different things with his camera. Tight close-ups, overhead shots, and shots around corners are all common in Any Gun Can Play.- Another plus is the cast that Castellari had to work with. George Hilton is always good in these movies. Gilbert Roland is literally playing Gilbert Roland. And SW newcomer Edd Byrnes holds his own with the two SW veterans. The supporting cast features, among others, SW regular Gerard Herter.- Any Gun Can Play should not be taken too seriously. Nice touches of humor can be found throughout the movie. If this is possible with an SW, it's more of a "feel good" movie - very reminiscent of some of the Terence Hill / Bud Spencer films.$LABEL$ 1
+It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as "Mrs Melbourne".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as "The Widow at Windsor",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname "Mrs Brown".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and "Young Victoria" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. "The Young Victoria" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it.$LABEL$ 1
+Old movie buffs will know why I'd call this one "The Man in the Grey Flannel Robe." Most Bible-based movies are basically schlock- what might call forth smiles and giggles here is how Peck, tries to raise consciousness on a variety of psychological and social issues with the spear carrying Neanderthals all about him. As a Great Romance, it falls flat as unleavened bread. But there is something gripping about this movie. Of all the big Hollywood Bible pictures it most strikingly conveys the ambivalent attitude of the Average American towards belief in the Biblical God. Billy Sunday's thesis is duking it out with H.L. Mencken's antithesis all through the script. Who gets the better of it in the Heavenly Chorus-backed synthesis depends on your point of view. Other than that, D & B boasts a good performances by Peck ( especially in the closing repentance scene) and by Jayne Meadows as his bitter first wife Michol, vivid, moody atmosphere (good idea to set most action at dawn or night), and the rousing rendition of the Twenty-Third Psalm at the end.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason this movie is not given a 1 (awful) vote is that the acting of both Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan is superb. Ida Lupino who is lovely, as usual, becomes increasingly distraught as she tries various means to rid herself of a madman. Robert Ryan is terrifying as the menacing stranger whose character, guided only by his disturbed mind, changes from one minute to the next. Seemingly simple and docile, suddenly he becomes clever and threatening. Ms. Lupino's character was in more danger from that house she lived in and her own stupidity than by anyone who came along. She could not manage to get out of her of her own house: windows didn't open, both front and back doors locked and unlocked from the inside with a key. You could not have designed a worse fire-trap if you tried. She did not take the precaution of having even one extra key. Nor could she figure out how to summon help from nearby neighbors or get out of her own basement while she was locked in and out of sight of her captor. I don't know what war her husband was killed in, but if it was World War II, the furnishings in her house, the styles of the clothes, especially the children and the telephone company repairman's car are clearly anachronistic. I recommend watching this movie just to see what oddities you can find.$LABEL$ 0
+A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next..$LABEL$ 0
+I'm lucky enough to have a good quality copy of my VHS on DVD so I can now watch this over and over again. The characters are so well played I can't find fault with any aspect of the casting. OK, so there are a few differences from the book, but the old cliché of love conquering all is so powerfully portrayed that it makes no difference. The reality of living in the rural countryside of early 19th century England is beautifully contrasted by the changing seasons, from biting winter to glorious summer days and this is mirrored in the different characters, from Prue's bullying father to Kester's all encompassing love. A story that changed my life.$LABEL$ 1
+Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is!$LABEL$ 0
+The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart. In short, fear is the villain in every love story.But in 'Darr' fear is the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla) frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story, whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of death.And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply "Darr" is one of the best Indian films ever made.$LABEL$ 1
+Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far. The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't. Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.$LABEL$ 0
+From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+A not bad but also not so great heist film. Kirk Douglas is a recently released from prison safe-cracker who, after turning down an offer from the Mob, decides to pull the job himself. He recruits circus gymnast Giuliano Gemma. Mayhem ensues. Douglas and Gemma soon find themselves pursued by mafia goon Romano Puppo as well as entangled in a really goofy love triangle with Douglas's infinitely patient girlfriend (Florinda Bolkan). Director Michele Lupo keeps the pace moving quickly and there's at least one excellent and creative car chase sequence involving Puppo & Gemma. Though an Italian production, most of the filming appears to have been done in Germany. Douglas is fine, not just slumming it in an Giallo quickie. The striking Bolkan gives a terrific performance. The music is by Ennio Morricone and the cinematography is by the great Tonino Delli Colli, who managed to work with everyone in Italy (from Wertmuller and Fellini to Pasolini and Leone).$LABEL$ 0
+A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES.$LABEL$ 0
+Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his "The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.Another good film by Greenaway was "A zed and two noughts". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is "Brazil". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books.$LABEL$ 0
+Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as "The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias "Macintosh" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+Strangers with candy overacts in all the wrong context, the situations are just not funny with the cheesy voices and bad low brow comedy timing, the clear attempt at dry/black/dark humour is obvious and it fails to deliver on all elements of a good joke.With a high cringe factor and low laugh ratio I was shocked this show went pass the first season, I personally like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Trailer Park Boys, Pulling, Peep Show, Simpsons, Family Guy and I know what your thinking, these shows aren't weird at all, so some other good shows I've seen are Jam, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Book Group, Asylum and Snuff Box which are original with dry/black/dark humour/satire and are all at least 5/10.Garth Marenghi's Darkplace especially is cheap looking, overacted and weird, however the context is thought out and works to make it really out there and entertaining too.$LABEL$ 0
+Jerry spies Tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis.I didn't find this particular episode that funny: the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (Jerry is essentially the 'bad guy' in this one, tormenting poor Tom for no particular reason).There is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as Tom's literal 'heart in mouth' experience, and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body), but, on the whole, this effort lacks the frenetic pacing, excellent animation and sheer wit of most of T&J's other cartoons.$LABEL$ 0
+I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.$LABEL$ 0
+A severe backwards step for the puppets in this mainly dull and tedious outing. Guy Rolfe, so fantastic as Andre Toulon in part three barely features this time and Richard Band's fantastical them tune appears with the puppets a fair few minutes in to the film. For the start of the movie we are introduced to the caretaker of Bodega Bay Inn (Gordon Currie) and some youth friends of his (many of the cast are Canadian and are all very good in unfortunately rather undemanding roles - Teresa Hill is quite yummy). Totems, minions of the Egyptian God Sutek want the secret of animation life back and the puppets (when they surface) act with a previously unseen cleverness to attempt to destroy the ugly and very computer game looking Totems. The Totems merely complicate the series and distract from the things that previously made the series so unique - they don't share the weird beauty of the puppets and thus don't really fit in. Top scene is Pinhead using a rag to clean blood from Tunnelers drill bit, classic and about the goriest this film goes. The fifth film was filmed concurrently with this one so expect similar sections of mediocre and a Toulon performance that seems to have been filmed in a different era (or even galaxy). Guy Rolfe deserved better and series fans certainly do. Grrrrrrr.$LABEL$ 0
+Was in the mood for a French film and saw this at Blockbuster. What a little gem it turned out to be! Not sure how I missed Gregori Derangere all these years, but he is fantastic. Such innocence and grace! I love his face and the way he moves. Isabelle Adjani was hilarious--reminded me of Nicole Kidman's over-the-top performance in Moulin Rouge. She looks the same as 20 years ago...truly remarkable. Gerard Depardieu has not held up nearly as well, but his acting continues to amaze. He's perfect in this film. Will probably buy this one, I enjoyed it so much. If you want to see another great French movie, rent Joyeux Noel. Stunning.$LABEL$ 1
+I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!$LABEL$ 1
+THE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember coming home from school to watch up and coming this was the story of a black family that moves out of the gheto into a up class community the family was name Wilson Frank Wilson man with his own construction business his wife Joyce was a bank manager they had 3 teenage kids Kevin Valerie and Marcus. This was a very good show. it was educational with out being preachie. the show was well written. This show gave us a look at a successful African American before the Cosby Show. A lot a black actor appeared on this show from Ester Role to David Hubberd to 227 Stonnie Jackson to name a few. If you are able to find this show on DVD you should get it for your whole family$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...$LABEL$ 0
+I am rating this an 8 because of the premise of the film. The acting was fine, there wasn't anyone that stood out as amazing or appalling. It is disturbingly true that intelligent people are having less and less children, or choose to have none at all...whereas dumb ass "W in '04" supporters are procreating like rabbits. And, though I don't believe the earth will actually exist in 500 years, I can see Mike Judge's parodied prophet coming to be, as life imitating art. The world is being run by idiots, and it will get worse as the intelligent free-thinking people become the minority and the "git 'er done" fans outnumber them. The proof is our farce of an election.But I digress. If you are fortunate enough to have this playing in your city, go see it. I have paid my $7.50 plus popcorn to see FAR WORSE rubbish than this (Date Movie or Napoleon Dynamite anyone?). There are laughs, there are cringes, but overall this is entertaining. If you have half a brain, you will think to yourself how this movie, though funny, is spot on (accurate) and a *tiny* bit uncanny. I'm not surprised AT ALL that this movie is almost completely unknown, as Fox was the one distributing this, and they wouldn't want any of their sheep to see this and think "maybe I WILL read a book, and not watch 'Next', or 'Cheaters', or 'Ow my balls'." If our society doesn't stop the dumbing down of everything,and the bastardisation of the English language (ahem, Mr. Bush), then this really is where we are going.$LABEL$ 1
+No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen)$LABEL$ 0
+What a piece of stupid tripe.I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.FOX has lost it, IMHO.$LABEL$ 0
+This may be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has anything but a trite plot, and leaves one wondering which way it will go next. It is an interesting portrayal of the struggles of youth, youth who are interested in more than immediate gratification, youth who show some concern about the desires and needs of others.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!$LABEL$ 1
+SPOILERS!I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, "oh my god it's poo."I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lolDominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog.....$LABEL$ 0
+I don't understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a "sleazy" piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE.$LABEL$ 0
+I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable "suprises" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of "Kill Bill" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a "ghost" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay guys, we know why we watch film like "The Invisible Maniac" (just look at the cover, man!). T and A all over the place (with a lot more T than A). But...shouldn't there be a story to go with it?"C'mon," I can hear you say - "this is just girls gettin' naked! Who needs a story??!"Well, if this were called "The NAKED Maniacs", I wouldn't have a problem. But since these guys are cribbing from "The Invisible Man", they need to have a bit of story hereabouts, you know, to keep your mind busy.However, all they can muster up is how this crazy doctor creates an invisibility serum and, when he cracks, uses it to spy on naked women and ends up killing a lot of teenagers. And when you see the smarmy-looking teenagers he goes after, you'll be grateful.One star, for the T and A, but there's a little too much gore for you skin fans, so proceed with caution.TIDBIT - yes, it's THAT Savannah.$LABEL$ 0
+How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :($LABEL$ 0
+I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film.$LABEL$ 0
+CONTEXT is everything when one goes to rate a movie. When rating this movie one has to consider the time in which it was made. We didn't really know WHAT the inside of the EARTH was in those days so you can't rag on the movie too much for the plot (based on a much older book). For the era, this was top notch special effects and the production quality was great. I watched this movie in a masterfully restored HD master. For the time the makeup and effects almost make the guys in the rubber suits look plausible as a monster-thing. This is pure movie cheese complete with bad rubber suits, models, and creepy costumes. AWESOME. PS Doug McClure ROCKS!$LABEL$ 1
+Dr. Hackenstein begins at the turn of last century, '1909 The dawn of modern medical science' to be exact. Dr. Eliot Hackenstein (David Muir) is in the early stages of his rejuvenation of living tissue experiments, Dr. Hackenstein manages to bring a skinned rat back to life which confirms he has succeeded in bringing the dead back to life... It's now 'Three years later' & Dean Slesinger (Micheal Ensign) is round the Doc's house for dinner. As Dean Slesinger & Dr. Hackenstein eat they talk about Hackenstien's experiments which Dean Slesinger has always been opposed to, Dr. Hackenstein shows Dean Slesinger his laboratory in his attic where he keeps the severed head of his wife Sheila (Sylvia Lee Baker) who died in an unfortunate 'accident' & can telepathically talk to him (Christy Botkin provides Sheila's voice apparently). Dr. Hackenstein also show's Dean Slesinger a skinned chicken running around in a cage & explains that with the process he has developed he will bring Sheila back to life. The Dean has some sort of seizure & apparently dies. Meanwhile sisters Wendy (Bambi Darro as Dyanne DiRossario) & Leslie Trilling (Catherine Davis Cox) plus their Brother Alex (John Alexis) & their cousin Melanie Victor (Stacey Travis) are driving along near Hackenstein's house when they crash, they seek shelter & assistance & arrive upon Hackenstein's doorstep. Dr. Hackenstein invites the four stranded travellers to stay for the night. Later on Dr. Hackenstein is visited by two grave-robbers, Xavier (Logan Ramsey) & Ruby Rhodes (Ann Ramsey) who deliver a male body when Hackenstein actually needs female parts for Sheila. Dr. Hackenstein being the genius that he is decides not to waste the opportunity of having three young beautiful specimens available & starts to 'borrow' the bits 'n' pieces he needs to complete Sheila...Written & directed by Richard Clark I was pleasantly surprised by Dr. Hackenstein, I'll state right now that it ain't brilliant by any stretch of the imagination but for what it was I actually quite liked it. It moves at a reasonable pace even if it does tend to drag a little bit during it's middle as things settle down. The script tries to mix slapstick humour like a scene when Dr. Hackenstein is trying to restrain Melanie & she tries to gain the attention of his deaf housekeeper Yolanda Simpson (Catherine Cahn) by kicking out & Hackenstein keeping Melanie behind Yolanda's back who is seemingly oblivious to what's happening, with a touch of gore but I'd say Dr. Hackenstein is more of a comedy than horror in conception & feel throughout. There are some tacky puns & sexual innuendo as well which are always good for a laugh, Dr. Hackenstein to Wendy "would you like to see my instruments" as an example. I also thought the scene when Mrs Trilling (Phyllis Diller) reports her missing daughter's to the bemused detective Olin (William Schreiner) was a pretty amusing sequence going round in circle's talking about why he isn't looking for them even though he has only just been told, why the cell doesn't have a prisoner in it & that if he didn't find the cousin not to worry about it. None of it's flat laugh-out-loud but I must admit I found myself smiling on occasion & found the film as whole to be quietly amusing. There isn't a lot of on screen gore, a few severed limbs, Sheila's decapitated head, some medical stitching & those skinned animals which are definitely fake by the way. I liked the characters in Dr. Hackenstein too, which was surprise in itself. The acting isn't brilliant but to give everyone credit they put some effort into it, lots of exaggerated facial movements & some serious overacting means it's never dull, oh & the three birds in Dr. Hackenstein are fit if you know what I mean. Technically the film is OK as well, once again it ain't going to win any Oscars but I have to give the filmmakers at least some credit for trying to pull off a turn of the century period setting. It doesn't always work, the clothes are at odds with each other at times, the girls look like their from Victorian England while the guys look like their from a western. The house looks as if all the filmmakers did was remove any modern object from the room & stick a few candles in there! It comes across as a little bit on the cheap side but it really isn't a bad looking film at all considering. Could have done without the comedy music though. Overall I ended up enjoying Dr. Hackenstein much more than I thought I would, although that in itself isn't a recommendation. It's certainly is not the best comedy horror film ever made & it certainly is not the worst either. A watchable enough piece of harmless fun.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.$LABEL$ 0
+Jarl and Moodysson are part of an dying breed of political film makers. The Swedish population should appreciate that they try to uncover the truth when the government and media actively distorts and cover up the events surrounding the EU meeting in Gothenburg. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how these innocent kids have been abused and drugged by the Swedish police and convicted to prison in political trials for sending text messages and as revenge for others actions. The only unfortunate thing about this movie is that it will not reach the broad masses in Sweden as it will only be shown it theaters and not be released on video or aired on television.The political film is important as it can bring new perspectives and insight into complex issues and has a role to play as an educator of the masses.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ...$LABEL$ 0
+The Thing About My Folks is a wonderful film about relationships - first and foremost an adult son and his father, but also that son with his wife, his sisters and his mother. Paul Reiser has written a semi-autobiographical movie about his relationship with his father. The movie is funny, poignant and thought-provoking. It led me to re-evaluate my own relationship with both my now-deceased father and my adult son. Peter Falk is excellent as Paul's father - the role could not have been better cast. I hope that both Mr. Falk and Mr. Reiser are recognized in next year's movie awards for their efforts - Falk for his performance and Reiser for his script.$LABEL$ 1
+I have just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favouriteplayers in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is just as bad as "The Birdman of Alcatraz". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here.$LABEL$ 0
+Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.Overall 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+Clint Eastwood would star again as the battle-weary Detective Harry Callahan, but would also direct the fourth entry in the 'Dirty Harry' series. 'Sudden Impact' again like the other additions, brings its own distinguishable style and tone, but if anything it's probably the most similar to the original in it's darker and seedy moments (and bestowing a classic line "Go ahead. Make my day")… but some of its humor has to been seen to believe. A bulldog… named meathead that pisses and farts. Oh yeah. However an interesting fact this entry was only one in series to not have it set entirely in San Francisco.The story follows that of detective Callahan trying to put the pieces together of a murder where the victim was shot in the groin and then between the eyes. After getting in some trouble with office superiors and causing a stir which has some crime lord thugs after his blood. He's ordered to take leave, but it falls into a working one where he heads to a coastal town San Paulo, where a murder has occurred similar in vein (bullet to groin and between eyes) to his case. There he begins to dig up dirt, which leads to the idea of someone looking for revenge.To be honest, I wasn't all that crash hot on Eastwood's take, but after many repeat viewings it virtually has grown on me to the point of probably being on par with the first sequel 'Magnum Force'. This well-assembled plot actually gives Eastwood another angle to work upon (even though it feels more like a sophisticated take on the vigilante features running rampant at that time), quite literal with something punishing but luridly damaging. It's like he's experimenting with noir-thriller touches with character-driven traits to help develop the emotionally bubbling and eventual morality framework. His use of images is lasting, due to its slickly foreboding atmospherics. Dark tones, brooding lighting… like the scene towards the end akin to some western showdown of a silhouette figure (Harry with his new .44 automag handgun) moving its way towards the stunned prey on the fishing docks. It's a striking sight that builds fear! Mixing the hauntingly cold with plain brutality and dash of humor. It seemed to come off. A major plus with these films are the dialogues, while I wouldn't call 'Sudden Impact' first-rate, it provides ample biting exchanges and memorably creditable lines… "You're a legend in your own mind". Don't you just love hearing Harry sparking an amusing quip, before pulling out his piece. The beating action when it occurs is excitingly jarring and intense… the only way to go and the pacing flies by with little in the way of flat passages. Lalo Schfrin would return as composer (after 'The Enforcer" had Jerry Fielding scoring) bringing a methodical funky kick, which still breathed those gloomy cues to a texturally breezy score that clicked from the get-go. Bruce Surtees (an Eastwood regular) gets the job behind the camera (where he did a piecing job with 'Dirty Harry') and gives the film plenty of scope by wonderfully framing the backdrops in some impeccable tracking scenes, but also instrument edgy angles within those dramatic moments.Eastwood as the dinosaur Callahan still packs a punch, going beyond just that steely glare to get the job done and probably showing a little more heart than one would expect from a younger Callahan. This going by the sudden shift in a plot turn of Harry's quest for justice… by the badge even though he doesn't always agree with it. I just found it odd… a real change of heart. Across from him is a stupendous performance by his beau at the time Sondra Locke. Her turn of traumatic torment (being senselessly raped along with her younger sister), is hidden by a glassily quiet intensity. When the anger is released, it's tactically accurate in its outcome. Paul Drake is perfectly menacing and filthy as one of the targeted thugs and Audrie J. Neenan nails down a repellently scummy and big-mouthed performance. These people are truly an ugly bunch of saps. Pat Hingle is sturdy as the Chief of the small coastal town. In smaller parts are Bradford Dillman and the agreeably potent Albert Popwell (a regular in the series 1-4, but under different characters). How can you forget him in 'Dirty Harry'… yes he is bank robber that's at the end of the trademark quote "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"$LABEL$ 1
+Some have commented on the subtitles not being a problem in this film - I beg to differ - the nuisances in the facial expressions and subtle interactions between the characters is such that you can not afford to take your eyes away for even a fraction of a second. I tried to watch, on the DVD, in English to overcome this problem (don't make this mistake the result is a travesty). The only way to get the full benefit is to watch it two or three times in quick succession so you know it and then ignore the subtitles. An acting master class - not in the dialogue but body language.It is the little things - the postmaster/shop keeper puffs out his chest and goes in to get his cap before delivering a letter from !France!. The General's bemused expression as his delight in a bunch of perfect grapes elicits a biblical reference with a profundity worthy of 'Being There'.The cinematography is awesome and the bleak minimalist village with its washed out colour just accentuates the sumptuousness of the feast when it comes. I have a friend who claims to be descended from the Borgias and who's family motto is 'If it is worth doing, it is worth doing to excess' - Amen.I laugh out loud and cry each time I watch this film$LABEL$ 1
+Well, of course not, women are overly sensitive and needy on average, which is interestingly portrayed from mother to whore, though not pseudo-artistically, extravagantly, or blatantly dwelt on. Unlike many of you I have only seen La Maman et La Putain twice. As many good films, I noticed my opinion of it improved after a second viewing. All that I know is what I have seen and have yet to delve into further exploits until I myself have acquired the dvd. I have yet to figure out precisely why I enjoy this movie so much, but really, what do I care why? Though I'm sure I could and will form some wonderful explanation. All right, so you may disagree, perhaps it is a bit boring at times, I'm not an expert. The blonde reminds me of a lovely Grushenka.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the most sublime of American masterpieces, Morrissey opens the film by sexualizing Dallesandro, with his open mouth snoring on a pillow. We wonder, is he coming off a heroin high? We just see his face, then, flash, his body, flash, his naked rear. I can't think of another film that used this flash-blip form of editing so well to create a hypnotic, druggy mood, an editing method that works wonderfully as both pacing and style. After that introduction, when Dallesandro opens his mouth, his accent is jarring -- we expect him to be some kind of soft-spoken androgyne; instead, he's got the voice of a street thug -- Morrissey isn't comfortable letting our assumptions go unchecked. The lengthy opening is very sexy and playful -- it's a combination of martial troubles, Dallesandro's fascinating lip-rubbing kisses, and early morning sexual escapades; it all kind of flows together, if not always smoothly, then emotionally realistically.What I got from this was the same as what I got from "The 400 Blows" when I first saw it -- this is like a 20-something continuation of that story. There's a sense of camaraderie between the flesh sellers and the buyers; when Dallesandro walks the street looking for men (to fund his wife's abortion) there's the feeling of a secret handshake as boys make deals with each other. I never found it boring, though nothing happens -- nothing happens brilliantly, the boys hanging around, as they do, waiting for tricks. The main trick that Dallesandro finds is fascinating to watch, using Greek descriptions and only touching his back, a form of aesthetic body worship on the man's part. It's also dreadfully funny ("I'm not talking to an empty bed, am I?"). It's one of the most revealing scenes in the movie -- in any movie, I think; certainly any movie dealing with sex and sex for sale. When Dallesandro's eyes seem red and swollen, we can't tell if it's because he's drunk, ashamed, embarrassed, or all.The conversations in the film are cut-up -- they don't matter. (The film is silent in a few scenes, some of the most poignant and beautiful you may ever experience.) Yet when Morrissey chooses to include one, the way he includes it (we sort of piece it together), it's startling, such as one conversation between Dallesandro and a newbie hustler -- and neither of them ever mentioning the word "gay" or "hustler." What follows is a scene where we listen to a pair of transvestites as Dallesandro gets serviced -- this just after explaining to the newbie "getting used" to the job.Dallesandro is a subject worthy of the attention paid to him, both by his clients and Morrissey. He's less than effective as an actor, in the sense of acting as performing, but as far as revealing something he's incredible -- he's someone we immediately want to feel above, yet we go through his experiences, with all their complexities, and we're forced to try and know him. He's the kind of blank slate that we're drawn to but can't get a hold on. And of course he's incredibly striking -- forgetting everything else, this is partially a testament to the beauty of the male body, Dallesandro's gorgeous torso and permanently erect nipples.The movie has one devastating scene, but like everything else you can't really master it -- a girl says that she's been raped, and her only self-defense is in saying that, had the rapist only asked for sex, wooed her, he would have gotten a better lay. It's shattering. The movie has feeling for everyone, but even better than that, it's not merely sympathetic, it actually attempts to help us understand human beings -- and without ever dictating what it is we're meant to be understanding. It neither looks down on nor glamorizes the people within the film. It feels inclusive when we see Joe's arm around a transvestite. When he reads a letter (he talks about not getting past grade eight at one point), he's utterly charming, as he pauses on a word...then says, "woteva," and continues.You can learn something more profound from the interaction between Dallesandro and one of his clients in terms of gay-straight relationships than you can from any case study. Here we have the young boy who smiles (his top lip disappears as he does so) when a 30-something gym bunny Korean war veteran runs his fingers through his hair; it's a scene that feels very profound, this adult man sharing something with a younger version of himself -- it's not two gay men together, or a gay man paying a straight man, it's something else you can't put your finger on; questions of sexuality are beside the point. (Never before has popping a pimple seemed as affectionate.) After sharing something with each other emotionally (though with Dallesandro, since he's there for money, it's never apparent why he's there; though he's never less than sincere, which may be his most disarming quality), "So...can you help me out?" The man says sure. "I don't mean my pants!" 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+I honestly can't believe that this film isn't more highly rated. Claude Chabrol could be described as something like a French Alfred Hitchcock, and while this film is only the second one of his that I've seen (the first being Le Boucher), I can already see that this guy is something special just on the strength of these two films. The film is a French and Canadian co-production, and takes place in Canada. The cast is made up of British and Canadian stars and the high quality performances bode well with the rest of the film; most of which is high quality also. The film is a murder mystery and begins when a young girl covered in blood is brought into a police station. After being questioned by Inspector Carella, it emerges that the young girl, Patricia, and her sister Muriel were attacked by a man who killed the sister and only just allowed Patricia to flee. However, as the investigation goes on, Patricia goes back to the station to give new evidence, which reveals a far more shocking identity to the murderer.The performances in this film are excellent. Donald Sutherland is subdued as usual, but he suits the role he's given here very well and I wouldn't hesitate to name his performance in Blood Relatives as one of his very best. The film also features supporting turns from British stars Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings who both give good turns; Pleasance in particular who shows just how great an actor he can be and highlights what a shame it is that he went on to waste himself in Halloween films. The unknown Aude Landry also gives a great performance in her role as Patricia. The movie is very mysterious for the first hour and really keeps the audience hooked. When Inspector Carella discovers Muriel's diary, the film turns into more of a drama in which the girl's last actions are shown; and while this section of the film is not as good as what went before it, it's still interesting and leads into a great twist at the end! Overall, Blood Relatives is a great film that really deserves to be better seen. Le Boucher is a better known effort from Chabrol, but for my money this is at least as good! Highly recommended viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+"I am ... proud of 'Head'," Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: "You figure it out."You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make "Head" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: "Head" is not The Monkees TV show.So what we have here is a "psychedelic documentary" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. "Head" is a movie that could only come from those "inside the box". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination."Head", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in "Head", a guy admits, "I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years." Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of "Things are not as they seem." Remember the old joke, "Everything you know is wrong"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own "manufactured image" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind "Head"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that "Head" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.Largely, the insiders responsible for "Head" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of "Head" want you to know that poor "information" is a far greater danger.Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, "What's wrong?" "I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it." The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. "Head" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. "Head" is either a movie that creates itself "as we go along", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just "Pot meets advertising", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: "The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want."Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.Match, cut.$LABEL$ 1
+I was 19 years old when I saw first saw this film, in the theater. I have a vivid memory of a different ending. Not completely different but significantly. I just watched the movie last night and I was wrong, so I guess the following can't be called a spoiler, since it never happened. The ending I remember was that the boy was hiding in the house completely naked, Frances Austen found him quite easily and after she confronted him, she slowly sank to her knees and went down on him off camera. Only his face was in the frame and it was pretty obvious he was letting it happen, albeit against his will. But nothing like this showed up in the movie. Sandy Dennis was 32 years old when she made this movie, Michael Burns was 22. In the movie, he complains to his sister that Frances makes too big a deal about sex. Yeah? Well, then, so go to bed with her dude, and get it over with. WTF?$LABEL$ 1